Focus on the Falsehoods

Ex-Gay Watch reports that Focus on the Family has falsely reported that:

Under pressure from homosexual activists, the American Psychological Association (APA) plans to re-examine its policy on therapy for gay men and women seeking change.

As reported by Ex-Gay watch, the reality is that PFLAG (a group of heterosexual people) initially brought up the issue with the APA, and later, according to the APA, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force only provided an opinion to the APA when the APA requested it.

Wow. One.

Quick! Stop the presses! Catholic World News is reporting on a guy in Italy who claims he used to be homosexual and was converted through the power of the Bible!

Waitaminnit... one guy in Italy claims that he used to be gay (of which I have no substantiation) and is now straight (of which I have no substantiation), and this is news? I thought these people were claiming this is a perfectly reasonable expectation, and that gay people can change... why is it worldwide news when one person claims to have made this supposedly reasonable change?

Hmm... could it be because it doesn't really happen? Even accepting on the face of it that Catholic World News believes reported honestly (in that they are honestly reporting the man's claim) I'm still not buying that it actually happened. Of course, this is the United States, where one can't seem to find an "Ex-gay" person who isn't employed by a right wing religious organization and/or doesn't admit that they still have homosexual feelings and desires but are merely acting out the part of being heterosexual.

Is Minnesota Family Council really Christian?

Winona Daily News publishes about efforts to gain some small amount of decent treatment for gay and lesbian couples in a state that has banned gay marriage. The example given is that a bill is being considered to allow, but not require, local governments to grant health care to the gay and lesbian partners of their gay and lesbian employees. (And you have no idea how much it galls me to use the word "partners".)

“This is the new strategy,” said Chuck Darrell, spokesman for the Minnesota Family Council. “They’ve changed to an incremental approach to gain a little bit here and a little bit there.”

Well duh! That's exactly what they say they're doing, so it's not like it's some big revelation...

Darrell and Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage held a news conference to outline plans to stoke local opposition in the districts of the bill’s, in hopes they’ll withdraw the measure.

Even if they don’t, Gov. Tim Pawlenty is unlikely to sign the bill. He’s been an outspoken opponent of state benefits for same-sex couples, going back to his days as GOP House Majority Leader, and spokesman Brian McClung said Pawlenty’s position hasn’t changed.

Now, let's be clear about this, folks. These people are actively working to try to make sure that law-abiding gay and lesbian Americans can't get health insurance. Is that Christian? Is it Christian to subject someone to living in the constant fear that if anything happens to them they'll be forced into bankruptcy because they can't afford health care? Is it Christian to subject someone to the risk of dying if they come down with a major disease like cancer or a heart condition and can't afford treatment? I don't think so.

And remember, in cities that have enacted "domestic partner" benefits, most people who have used them have been heterosexual, so these people are hurting heterosexual people too.

That's why I think "Minnesota Family Council" and "Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage" (a lie of a name in my opinion since their goal is to prevent people from marrying) are un-christian.

A lie in Massachusetts

I'm shocked that the Concord Monitor chose to publish David Testerman's letter, "Homosexual agenda puts our values at stake". I'm always shocked when a paper publishes as an "opinion" piece something that is full of factual errors. To say "I believe gay people are immoral" is an opinion; specific claims about specific events that happened in a specific place are either facts or falsehoods.

I'm also tired of hearing about the Homosexual Agenda. The planning committee is still working on it, and we're stuck on whether we want to ask for pink triangle lanes at the supermarket or pink triangle parking spaces at the hair salon.

Mr. Testerman writes:

Homosexual activists have laid out a thorough plan to gain acceptance of homosexual behavior in America

Oh, darn it, and they forgot to invite me to the planning meeting again!

We all have seen what this 1 percent to 2 percent of our population has done to destroy the fabric of our country.

Yup, we have. Absolutely nothing at all.

A late-stage step in that plan is legislation that would create stiffer penalties for crimes against those who identified themselves as homosexual than against other citizens.

Where do they make this nonsense up? I've never met or even heard of a gay person demanding such an outrageous thing. What many gay people (and not all) do ask for is laws to create stiffer penalties for crimes in which the criminal has made clear their belief that the victim is gay and that they are committing the crime because of this belief. Such laws protect not only gay people, but also straight people who are incorrectly perceived to be gay. And, they are not applicable in cases where the victim is gay but the criminal did not know or perceive the fact, or in cases in which the victim is gay and the criminal did know but the fact was not related to their decision to commit the crime. Indeed, hate crime laws are difficult to apply to most cases, because unless the criminal specifically says something to indicate that hate was their motivation for committing the crime, there is usually no evidence to indicate that it was in fact a hate crime.

Mr. Testerman continues:

It has already happened in the United States, where local hate-crime laws have been enacted. In Philadelphia, Christians ranging in age from 17 to 72 were arrested and jailed for singing hymns and carrying signs encouraging homosexuals to repent.

I don't know if Mr. Testerman is ignorant of the facts or is deliberately lying, but his statement is untrue. What actually happened is that a group of people who claim to be Christian were arrested and jailed because they invaded a gay rights event (which had a lawfully issued permit to parade and assemble in a public place) without a permit and loudly attempted to disrupt the gay rights event, and then refused to leave when asked to. So, these supposed Christians walked into what legally amounts to being a private party and made a point to be as loud and annoying as possible, and then refused to leave... and they have the gall to try to make it look like it's the gay people's fault that they were arrested?

Mr. Testerman writes:

House Resolution 254 establishes a federal hate-crime law. It creates special protection and stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by someone's actual or perceived "sexual orientation." The law does not, in itself, criminalize speech against homosexual behavior.

That's correct. Remember that.

But it will open the door to criminalization of speech.

Last I checked, criminalization of speech was still prohibited by both state and federal constitutions in the United States, and no law passed by congress can change that fact. I consequently conclude that Mr. Testerman is either ignorant of this basic aspect of how our government works, or is trying to whip up hysteria to get people to act against laws protecting innocent people.

Scottish Catholic Adoption

Scotland is preparing to implement law which will ban discrimination against gay people in provision of goods or services. The Catholic church is upset because this will ban them from discriminating in the adoption services they provide on behalf of the government.

From the article:

The Catholic Church insist this would force them to close agencies as it would be against their religious beliefs to place a child in a gay household.

The use of the word "force" in this context is what I would call a lie. When a government forces someone to do something, it does so at gunpoint. Under no circumstances is the church being forced to close its adoption agencies; quite the contrary, it is being asked to please keep them open. The fact that the church does not wish to comply with the anti-discrimination law and consequently plans to close its agencies means that it is choosing to close the agencies.

John Deighan, parliamentary officer for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said members of the Bishop's Conference were so concerned they were seeking legal advice on their rights.

[some quotes deleted here for brevity]

"What we are looking at is are the UK government stepping over their competence by bringing into law regulations that do away with rights under the European Convention of Human Rights? We are not even being allowed to follow our consciences in saying we think married couples provide a better home."

What right is being violated? They're still allowed to believe as they like, and they may provide adoption services in compliance with the anti-discrimination law or choose not to place children with gay couples by choosing not to provide adoption services.

Further, it is my understanding that the church receives funding from the Scottish government, paid for with tax dollars, to provide adoption services. In other words, it isn't just providing adoption services out of the kindness of its heart, but rather, is doing so under contract for the government. It is not only the government's right, but in fact the government's duty to set standards for the provision of adoption services, for the benefit of the children involved. I can not see how the church has any right to receive tax dollars and place children for adoption; that would seem to be a privilege under any circumstances. If the church does not feel it can comply with the anti-discrimination law, it is right for them to choose to close their agencies.

Further, claiming that "We are not even being allowed to follow our consciences in saying we think married couples provide a better home" is, to be blunt, entirely false. They're entirely able under the law to continue saying that. They're just not going to continue to receive the privilege of being paid by the government and permitted to place children for adoption if they can't do so in the manner required by law.

Health Care Nonsense

Star Parker attempts to explain "Why our health-care system is out of control by complaining about vaccinations against HPV:

A few days ago, pharmaceutical giant Merck announced that it was pulling the plug on its nationwide lobbying campaign to get state legislatures to mandate that preteen schoolgirls receive its vaccine, Gardasil. It protects against some strains of HPV that may lead to cervical cancer.

Company officials stopped the campaign because of a nationwide backlash fueled by concerns that it is premature to mandate a new vaccine that has many unresolved questions regarding efficacy and safety; and that, in any event, it should not be mandated because the virus is transmitted through sex and not through casual contact, and that parental rights were being violated.

If it has "many unresolved questions regarding efficacy and safety", why is it not under review by the FDA, which has in fact approved it for use?

What does the mode of transmission have to do with anything? Whether or not to mandate a vaccination is a public health decision, and morality isn't at issue.

And what parental rights are being violated? Is it a violation of parental rights to mandate tetanus shots for children? If so, why isn't Ms. Parker protesting that? If not, how is HPV vaccination any different?

Merck's answers here are simple. Regarding cost, as much as it can charge. In this case, about $400, or about eight times the cost of a measles vaccine.

Yes, $400 is a lot of money for a vaccine. I would hope our governments would negotiate a bulk discount. But that said, I'm sure it's trivial compared to the cost of treating a case of cervical cancer, or worse, compared to the suffering of the grieving family of a woman who dies of it.

Ms. Parker opines about HPV:

Furthermore, the risk of exposure can be reduced to the realm of the remote simply by avoiding sexual promiscuity.

However, this fails to account for the fact that as a sexually transmitted disease, there are two people involved with its transmission. If a woman is monogamous for her entire life, and only ever has sex with her husband, she can still get HPV if he ever had sex with a previous girlfriend or spouse (even once!), or if he cheats on her and doesn't tell her. Does Ms. Parker believe that a woman should get cancer because her husband cheated, or because he had a previous relationship?

Given this picture, anyone who wants to pay Merck $400 and vaccinate a daughter should be free to do so. But, does it make any kind of economic sense for the government to mandate that every girl must be vaccinated, regardless of who she is, how she behaves, who her parents are and what they can afford and prefer?

Yes, it does, because her behavior is only half of the risk factors, and viruses don't care who she is or whether or not her parents can afford a vaccine, and the fact that people are stupid enough to want their daughters to be exposed to additional risk of cancer in the name of their concept of sexual morality is proof enough for me that for a girl's protection she needs the government to intervene to prevent her from dying for her parents' stupidity.

Ms. Parker is trying to make out that government-mandated health care expendatures are what's wrong with our health care system. Yet, according to the National Institute of Health:

Thirty percent of Medicare costs cover care for the sickest 5% of patients, and 70% of overall health care costs cover care for the sickest 10% of the population. Of the $242 billion in Medicare expenditures in 2001, 26%, or $63 billion, was spent during the last 12 months of life, and 14%, or $34 billion, was spent in the last 2 months of life.

So, clearly a much bigger problem than government mandated health expendatures is the fact that we're spending vast amounts of money on people who are about to die anyway. Would it not be better to learn, as a culture and as individuals, to face when death is inevitable and to accept it with dignity, rather than to spend vast sums trying to stay alive only to suffer for a few more days? To save that money, which will do no real good for us in our dying days, to pay for the health care of our descendants?

Ms. Parker opines:

This is what is wrong with our system. And this is the universal health care that Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have in store for us.

No, thanks.

I don't think things like government mandated vaccines are what's wrong with our system, when they're such a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of end-of-life care. Actually, I believe that by exercising bulk purchasing power, the government has the capacity to reduce the costs of our medications and care. And while many people, including Ms. Parker, have tried to make the idea of universal health care seem scary, no one is talking about taking away citizens' rights to purchase health care above and beyond that which is offered by any government program. Finally, I can't imagine how government-provided health care is going to be worse than the "no health care" program that so many Americans have had to suffer with for so many years.

I am a young highly trained white collar computer professional, but in part due to instability in my professional field and in part due to today's corporate culture of laying off valued and productive workers at the slightest economic downturn, I've suffered many periods of unemployment or employment that doesn't include medical insurance and doesn't pay me enough to afford it. I know what it's like to go without medical insurance for years at a time. I know what it's like to live in fear that if I fall down and break an arm I will face economic ruin, or that if I have an asthma attack I may die for lack of treatment I can't afford. Frankly, even a poorly run government-provided medical program would have done me a lot more good than the nothing at all that I had, and I believe the millions of Americans who can't afford any health care will agree.

Distorting the words of a judge

Another article from Worldnetdaily... This time the very title of the article, "Judge orders 'gay' agenda taught to Christian children", is false.

The article is about a lawsuit brought against a public school by people who claim to be Christian, trying to force the school never to mention gay people in class without their advance written permission. The basis of their claim is a Massachusetts law requiring that parents be notified in advance before sex education is taught in class so that they may choose to exempt their children from such classes. (Personally I think that's incredibly stupid given the repeated studies that have indicated that children who don't get sex-ed are just as likely to have sex as children who do, but those who do are more likely to take preventative action against sexually transmitted diseases, but that's another story.) Essentially their argument was that mentioning a gay couple in class constitutes sex-ed because, in their minds apparently, "gay couple" means "sex", and requires parental permission. By that logic, mentioning any couple in class would require a permission slip. Indeed, by that logic it would be illegal to tell the child who to give the permission slip to, because mentioning "parents" implies that sex went on, so they'd need a permission slip to discuss the permission slip.

So, it seemed pretty obvious to me that their case would get thrown out of court, and I can't imagine that their lawyers didn't think of that and tell them that, so I believe that the case was brought merely for the publicity, or perhaps to try to scare the school into doing what they want by running up a big legal bill at the expense of children's education.

Anyway, getting back to what actually happened, the judge did not order that a "gay agenda" be taught to christian children. What he did was reject the case, on the basis that people do not have a special right to force the school not to teach things they find objectionable. He also ruled that the school has a compelling legal reason to teach the material it is teaching; that doesn't mean it is required my judicial order to teach it, but rather, that teaching it is not frivilous and so the school's ability to teach the material overrides the distaste of an individual set of parents.

Indeed, not only did the judge not rule that the material must be taught to Christians, he even outlined no less than three options that the plaintiffs have to lawfully school their children without the child being exposed to anything they object to. Further, one of these three options is for the parents to cause a school board that agrees with them to be elected and thus cause the school to stop teaching the material. It is blatantly obvious from this that the judge is unquestionably not requiring that the children in question be taught the material the parents objected to or that the school must teach it; he is, rather, ruling that the school may teach it, and if the parents choose to send their children to the school, they do not have a special right to stop the school from doing so or to be notified in advance about it.

Despite all of these fairly indisputable facts, Bob Unruh, the author of the article, claims:

A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."

This is so transparently at odds with reality that I feel that no further argument against it is necessary.

The article continues,

"David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral."

I've always wondered about this "gay lifestyle" thing. My gay "lifestyle" involves going to work, coming home, doing laundry, cooking dinner, and worrying about paying the bills. I'm really not sure which of these things they think is immoral. Maybe it's the laundry? But back to the article...

"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare." [trimmed by TF] ...said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.

I sincerely doubt it. I know quite a few parents who would in fact welcome the ruling.

"In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers' only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing – that if they can't be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the U.S. Constitution?" the organization said.

Well, I guess that shows they can't possibly be ignorant of the three ways the judge offered them to get what they want. And I'd like to point out that unlike the plaintiffs in this case, who chose to be as they are, black people are born black, and are a lawfully protected minority. Like, for example, gay people in Massachusetts.

Back to the article:

But Wolf's claims followed very closely the reasoning submitted earlier in a brief by Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, Massachusetts Teachers Association, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and other advocates for the "gay" agenda.

Earlier, Mass Resistance President Brian Camenker had wondered why such national groups were "so interested in a parent's right to decide what moral issues are taught to his children by adults in elementary schools, especially regarding homosexuality."

Mr. Camenker might wish to observe that neither the Massachusetts Teachers Association nor Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders are national groups. And further, if Mr. Camenker wishes to complain about involvement of national groups, perhaps he'd like to explain the staunch support of Worldnetdaily of his causes (including this one), or where the money backing him and the plaintiffs in this case comes from.

Mr. Unruh further claims:

Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington in April 2005 over his request – and the school's refusal – to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his 6-year-old kindergartner. That despite a state law requiring such notification.

This is also entirely false. Mr. Parker was arrested for refusing to leave the school as the staff tried to close it, when he didn't get what he wanted. (A rather babyish action on his part, in my opinion.) Even the conservative Boston Herald notes that the parents could have sat down with school officials and tried to negotiate in a civil manner and attempt to reach some sort of compromise, but didn't. He was entirely free to make the request, even to do so again in the future if he desired, but he was arrested for breaking the law ("tresspassing", if I remember correctly) by refusing to leave. Notice that Mr. Unruh doesn't mention that very important detail?

But he goes on:

Parker and other parents followed with the federal civil rights lawsuit, alleging school officials were refusing to follow state law.

Just days later, David Parker's son, Jacob, was beaten up at Estabrook Elementary, officials said. MassResistance said a group of 8-10 kids surrounded him and took him out of sight of "patrolling aides," then pummeled and beat him.

Mr. Unruh seems to be trying to imply that these facts are in some way related. However, the school investigated extensively and determined that they weren't. Indeed, the parents of the boy who fought with Jacob Parker said that the two boys were actually friends having a disagreement, that it had nothing to do with the legal case, and that the boys had made up and were friends again. I think it's ridiculous to try to imply that a group of grammar school children would have much awareness of or actually care about a federal civil rights lawsuit, let alone that they'd take it personally enough to beat another kid up over it. Anyone who has attended a public school should be fully aware that playground fights happen all the time over trivial nonsense, and practically never over anything of substance.

Mr. Unruh quotes John Haskins of the "Parents' Rights Coalition":

"As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state's right to force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people's children arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney's nakedly false and unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal."

Perhaps Mr. Haskins should review the history of marriage rights in Massachusetts. First, Mr. Romney merely implemented a court order, over his repeated and (in my opinion) exceedingly rude objections. The state implemented marriage for gay couples at the order of the Supreme Judicial Court, the highest court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which ruled that the state is required to recognize marriages of gay couples based on a number of specific elements of the Massachusetts constitution. So, rather than being unconstitutional, the ruling was in fact based on the state constitution. Moving right along:

Haskins said when the Massachusetts state Supreme Court demanded homosexual marriages in the state, it didn't have the constitutional or legal authority to order the governor to act or to order the Legislature to make any changes, and the creation of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts actually was accomplished by executive order from Romney.

If I remember correctly, the court didn't order the governor to act or the legislature to make any changes, it ordered the town clerks to accept marriage applications from gay and lesbian couples, and Mr. Romney's order merely specified the manner in which the court's ruling should be implemented. (Please don't view this as me defending or endorsing Mr. Romney. But, this blog is for keeping the facts clear.)

(The Boston Globe wrote an editorial about the ruling that I rather like.)

Claims of bias in journalism

I'm frequently appalled by the articles of "Worldnetdaily", which claims to be a news compan and rather obviously targets a christian audience. Their February 24 article, "Dump the gay beat", exemplifies why they bother me.

Right off the bat the author, Joseph Farah, claims:

No matter where you turn today in the so-called "mainstream" media (you know, the part of the press losing all the readers and viewers), practically all you see is coverage of people with aberrant sexual practices.

Really? That's certainly news to me. I watch plenty of TV (cable, no less) and read a lot of news both online and in print, and I hardly ever learn anything about anyone's sexual practices from it. On the rare occasions that I do, it's generally either very mainstream vanilla heterosexuality, or it's presented as weird and abhorrent. I'd like to know where Mr. Farah lives that the mainstream media is confused with porn channels. But he continues:

It started slowly, innocently. Before we knew it, the journalism business had gone as fey as Broadway.

As it happens, I used to know a guy who worked on broadway. He was in a production of La Cage Aux Folles, a story in which most of the characters were gay men. It turned out that there were no gay men in the production at all. Not a one. My friend was bisexual... but he was actually playing one of the few straight men in the show. I guess Mr. Farah doesn't realize that Broadway, like everything else, is mostly full of straight people. No matter. He continues:

Today, no story that reflects negatively on homosexuality can or will be published, disseminated or broadcast because of this internal pressure lobby inside the "gay media complex."

Really? Then what does he think he's writing? It sure looks published to me, and it certainly doesn't look like a love letter to gay people.

While attempting to claim that news is biased toward gay people, he claims:

In case you missed it, the lead paragraph of Crary's AP story reported: "Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents, according to a new national study challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same sex marriage and gay adoption." (Emphasis added.)

As I pointed out, the study did no such thing. In fact, the report specifically stated that "the number of these families in most nationally representative datasets is still too small to support statistical analysis. Our analyses focus on married male-female couples who adopt."

In other words, reporter Crary and his colleagues and editors at AP manufactured pro-homosexual fantasies in a study that had nothing to do with homosexuals.

Of course, this is flatly untrue. If you look at the quote from the original article, you'll see that Mr. Crary is claiming that the facts of the study contradicts arguments which have been used to oppose same sex marriage and gay adoption, not that the study itself mentions these arguments. It is a simple fact that many people have argued against marital rights and adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples by using claims that they will be poor parents, or indeed that heterosexual couples make better parents because they could have biological children. The study mentioned indicates that the ability to have biological children doesn't make better parents. This clearly contradicts the arguments against gay couples marrying or parenting.

So, Mr. Farah seems to either be unable to understand Mr. Crary's article, or disingenuously chooses to deliberately misconstrue it.

"Concerned Women for America" and their questionable claims

Associated Press is reporting on the possibility that the US Congress may pass gay laws to protect the rights of gay and lesbian Americans at long last. The article speculates about the possible passage of an employment nondiscrimination law, and a hate crimes law to cover hate crimes against gay people.

From the article:

This year, with Democrats now in control and many Republicans likely to join in support, the hate-crimes and workplace bills are widely expected to prevail.

"With liberals in control, there's a good possibility they'll both pass," said Matt Barber, a policy director with the conservative group Concerned Women for America. "They're both dangerous to freedom of conscience, to religious liberties, to free speech."

"Concerned Women for America" claims on their web site:

"We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 28-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy."

They also claim:

"The mission of CWA is to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation."

I feel compelled to question two aspects of this claim. The first is the claim that it's a "women's organization", since their spokesperson's name is "Matt".

But moreover, I question what "biblical principles" they could possibly be trying to promote.

An employment nondiscrimination act would enable a gay or lesbian person to honestly hold down an honest job in the knowledge that they won't be fired just for being gay. It isn't dangerous to freedom of conscience, to religious liberties, or to free speech to let a gay person keep their job. It doesn't violate freedom of conscience, because people will still be free to believe whatever they like about gay people. Every single gay rights law in the United States that protects gay people from employment discrimination has made an exemption for religious organizations. No one is asking for a federal nondiscrimination law to be any different. So, it doesn't violate religious liberties either. And it doesn't violate freedom of speech, because it doesn't prohibit people from saying whatever they like about their opinions about gay people. So, it looks like CWA's claims don't apply to an employment nondiscrimination law.

Hmm. What about the other one?

Federal hate crime laws do not actually make anything illegal that wasn't already illegal. Rather, they place an additional penalty on certain crimes which are already crimes. So, passing a law to make crimes against gay and lesbian americans based on hate covered under federal hate crimes law won't cause anyone to be convicted who wouldn't already be convicted without the new law. So, claiming that such a law would violate people's rights in some new way is false.

I believe the bible does have something to say about making false claims. Perhaps CWA should try reading it.

Now, let's look at what motivation someone could possibly have for opposing these laws, because I doubt CWA would bother opposing them if they didn't have a motive.

Why would someone oppose a law prohibiting discrimination in employment against gay people? Because they want people to discriminate against gay people. CWA is no doubt aware that as a religious organization CWA itself would be exempt, so I conclude that they must want their members and supporters to discriminate against gay people.

Is it really Christian to deny a gay or lesbian person the opportunity to make an honest living and support themself? Is it really Christian to want a gay or lesbian person to have no income, and to suffer the consequences of having no income in the US, including homelessness and starvation? Is it, for that matter, American to deny someone the right to pursue their happiness by earning a decent living?

Next, why would anyone oppose a law against hate crimes committed against gay and lesbian people? The only concievable reason why anyone would oppose such a law would be because they want such crimes to be committed, and want the criminals to get off easy. I conclude from this that CWA wants gay and lesbian Americans to be victims of the kinds of crimes covered under federal hate crimes law.

And what kinds of crimes are we talking about?

According to the FBI, the 5190 hate crimes reported in 2005 include physical intimidation, assault, murder, rape, robbery, arson, and vandalism.

It is my opinion that "Concerned Women for America", by opposing a hate crimes law to protect gay and lesbian Americans, is doing nothing less than expressing support by inference for intimidation, assault, murder, rape, robbery, arson, and vandalism, directed against innocent gay and lesbian Americans. And I think that makes "Concerned Women for America" thoroughly un-christian.