Thursday, April 26, 2007

Definitions Please!

MassResistance has filed a bill, S2095, that would remove "undefined sexual terminology" -- namely "sexual orientation" -- from the Massachusetts statutes. And we're now warning that the new Massachusetts "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" Bill H1722 does not clearly define "gender identity and expression" which it proposes to protect. The possible miscarriages of justice are unimagineable if this terminology is embedded undefined in law.

We're not the only ones thinking along these lines. There are some very savvy Congressmen fighting the same battle in D.C. But how do the pansexual radicals get away with such brazen defiance of legal standards? Promoting sweeping "hate crimes" legislation (HR1592) without any definition of the terms central to their new law: "sexual orientation," and "gender identity and expression"!

And why is the establishment "conservative" media not reporting on this? We're reading excellent reports on the D.C. hearings on the new federal transgender "hate crimes" bill HR1592 from Traditional Values Coalition. But no one else seems fully informed on the danger of this Pandora's box about to be opened up. Excerpts from TVC's Rev. Lou Sheldon and Andrea Lafferty's report on the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee:

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

For almost 11 hours Rev. Lou Sheldon, Chairman of Traditional Values Coalition, and CEO Andrea Lafferty monitored every move in the Judiciary Committee relevant to the HR 1592, the Hate Crimes bill. They sat in the front row from early morning until it was concluded around 9:15 p.m. All 25 Republican amendments were defeated. The purpose of the Markup is to vote on amendments to the bill. There are 23 Democrats and 17 Republicans. HR 1592 passed by a party line vote, all Democrats supported it and all Republicans opposed. Following is their account of the “Markup.” …

Republican Congressman Dan Lungren from California stating that no where in the bill are the terms “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” definition and he asked for a definition. The democrats referred to what they said was an accepted definition of sexual orientation, heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. The republicans did not agree stating that heterosexuality was not an orientation. The democrats did not want to discuss a definition of even sexual orientation or have it in the bill. They wanted no definitions.

Friends, it was obvious. There are many additional orientations that would have had to be included in sexual orientation. Also, they would have to agree to a definition of gender identity and they did not want that. They obviously did not want to define gender identity to include she-male, cross-dresser, drag queen, transgender, transsexual, etc….

Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert of Texas moved to remove "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from the bill. It failed on a recorded vote of 19 to 13….

Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?” Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.

The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?” And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”

Friends, that is what we have been warning you about and our legal advice was correct. It is evident what HR 1592 is about. It is not about homosexuals and cross dressers suffering with no food, shelter or jobs, it is about preventing Bible-believing people and pastors from speaking the truth.

It is about punishing them so they will not dare to speak the truth.

It is about threatening them with prison so they won’t dare speak the truth.