Posted on 04/07/2007 4:27:36 AM PDT by Man50D
A plan being shoved down a fast track in the Oregon Legislature would give homosexuals a vast range of new state laws they could use to impose their moral perspective on Christians across the state, according to opponents who fear for their speech and religious expression rights.
Senate Bill 2, on its face, is written to enshrine in state law special protections for homosexuals by classifying them as a protected civil rights group. But hundreds of pastors – whose churches include tens of thousands of evangelical Christians – are horrified by what they see advancing virtually without opposition.
"Senate Bill 2, in the Oregon House of Representatives, if passed, will limit your free speech rights and rights of conscience; require public schools to teach that homosexual/lesbian/bisexual behavior is 'okay' and 'moral'; impact your rights as a business owner; and put judges in authority on certain church matters," according to David Crowe, of the Christian ministry called Restore America.
This bill is arrogantly, defiantly and deceptively crafted to accomplish a lot more than what it is saying," he told WND. "It definitely adds sexual orientation to the list of protected civil rights groups.
"But there is verbiage in the bill and the verbiage has to do with the primary purpose of a church. They're seeking really to gain a foothold for homosexuals into the Christian church with the court's approval," he said.
"It's more than the nose of the camel, they want the whole camel in the tent to ruminate around however they would like," he said. "The word we've gotten from attorneys is that of all the bills around the country this is the worst," Crowe said.
"The bottom line this is a total effort by the left to subvert our morality, our Judeo-Christian morality and impose on us a morality they consider superior. What it is really is challenging everything we as Christians stand for."
The bill would affect churches even though it has a so-called church exemption, he said, because it would require every church operation that isn't directly in support of its primary mission goal to be subject to mandatory homosexual hiring requirements and other restrictions.
And it would leave the determination of what is in support of a church's primary mission to be determined by a secular judge. It is possible, for example, that a lesbian could sue a church if not hired to be a pastor's secretary.
For Christian business owners, it would require them to hire and promote homosexuals irrespective of the religious beliefs the owner might hold -- or whether the employee agrees with the products, in a Christian bookstore for example.
For parents, it means their children in public schools would be subject to the state-sponsored and state-required indoctrination that the homosexual lifestyle choice is moral – even if the parents hold religious beliefs that contradict that.
"The law – and this is onerous – has a clause that talks about developing a program of education to change our attitudes," Crowe said. "To change our attitudes? Is it the government's business to change attitudes? But that's precisely what's in the bill."
"They want to put into law [their] view of morality, and that's a small minority view of morality. They are seeking to impose that on the rest of us," he said.
Nearly 500 Christian pastors from across the state recently gathered with representatives of the Legislature to express their opposition to the proposal, and afterwards issued a statement that the law, if approved, would be "the most sweeping and culturally devastating law in Oregon history, establishing pagan morality under the guise of a 'civil right,' and imposing it upon all Oregonians under the cover of 'law.'"
Crowed noted that of the 14 states that have added "sexual orientation" to their protected classes, all except Senate Bill 2 provide clear protection for churches. "Not one includes wording that allows courts to determine the 'primary purpose' of a church, but SB 2 does," he noted.
"The majority of our legislators have chosen to believe the lie that those who engage in homosexual activity cannot help themselves, and that they are being unjustly and wrongly discriminated against, when in fact, neither is true," Crowe said.
The proposal "clearly opens the door to liberal judges to redefine and decide the 'primary purpose' of a church, and violates the rights of everyone," said Crowe, who recommends people sign a petition to encourage legislators to oppose the plan.
The governor had appointed a commission to study the issue, but included only representatives of liberal or "gay" churches, leaving members of 2,500 Bible-believing and teaching churches unrepresented on the panel, he said.
Individual leaders from Christian organizations already have begun contacting not only their lawmakers, but Gov. Ted Kulongoski too.
A letter from Vernon M. Marks, superintendent of the Oregon Assemblies of God churches, told Kulongoski that the more than 30,000 members of those churches are urging the rejection of the plan.
His letter told the governor the bills will:
1. Violate the very moral and ethical foundations of our culture.
2. Restrict the rights of our citizens to make moral distinctions and to speak freely.
3. Disregard fundamental biblical guidelines for the sanctity of traditional family.
4. Promote dysfunctional family structures that will rob the next generation.
5. Ignore the overwhelming vote of Oregonians to preserve traditional marriage.
6. Discriminate against parents raising mentally and physically challenged adult children.
7. Provide special rights for a few and ignore the civil rights of the majority of Oregonians.
8. Discriminate against parental moral values and convictions.
9. Promote behaviors that clearly violate common sense and social stability.
10. Will create a huge strain on Oregonians economically.
11. Will elevate the already taxed judicial system in dealing with lawsuits over these issues.
12. Infringe on the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion.
John Fortmeyer, publisher of the Christian News Northwest reported that the Legislature has given the appearance of allowing public input, but it doesn't appear to impact any decisions.
Nick Graham of the Oregon Family Council told him a March hearing on the plan lasted seven hours and had 126 people register to oppose it. Sixty-five supported it.
"We had fantastic testimony in opposition, such as from legal firms and executive pastors," Graham said. "But to no avail, that evening, the bill was passed out of committee and sent to the floor of the Senate ... We were given the appearance of public input, but ultimately it meant nothing."
"Also, PRAY!" said a message from Marks to the church group's pastors. "This is possibly the most dangerous piece of legislation to come from Oregon's legislature."
The Constitution Party said the plan is a "recipe for civil war."
Mark
You've hit on the real crux of the matter here. While they cry about tolerance, what they really want is not just acceptance, but validation. Both of which are completely different from tolerance. Tolerance means that we tolerate them. They don't want to be tolerated. Many don't even just want to be accepted as they are. The loudest, tiny minority want themselves to be declared "normal." And they're willing to do anything to get that.
Mark
If all sins were equally advocated, groups advocating murder, rape, incest, torture, adultery, child abuse and so on would actually exist alongside the gay ones. Curiously, there is already a group that advocates for child abuse - NAMBLA - and oddly enough, it’s a homosexual group too.
Until we regain the moral clarity to speak with authority on this issue and forget about trying to be nice PC tolerant accepting liberals, the problem will remain.
You can mark me down as suffering from “homonausea.”
This is not a “recipe for civil war.” Most of the country has been indoctrinated in government schools for many generations now. The takeover is complete. People give lip-service only to Christian beliefs. Those opposing this bill represent a small “shrill” minority (which is what the MSM and politicians regard them as). The majority of people just yawn and ask, “What’s the problem? Isn’t it right to let people ‘love’ whoever they want? Why should these fundamentalists impose their religion on us? Who cares if this bill passes. It doesn’t hurt me.” That’s the reality. And, that is what is taught to children from an early age. And so long as conservatives keep shipping their children off to be indoctrinated in government schools, the country will continue its slide into the slime pit.
How about Nudists? Where are their rights?
In the future, we’ll probably have to pass bills which actually ‘protect’ churches ability to practice their own faith without government input (your know, kinda like the constitution but with the approval of state legislatures).
BTTT
All families welcome - except heterosexual Christians and Jews.
Similar topic, anyone remember some nitwit on the now defunct Donahue show that made the claim that any child raised in a household that included a father and mother was damaged and abused?
Why do I see a test case of a transexual Satan worshipper demanding that it be hired in a Christian bookstore?
What’s really ugly about this bill is that Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage with a solid 57% of the vote in 2004. I know this isn’t about marriage but it shows the cavalier nature of the Democrats.
On a more positive note, a similar bill to this is stalled in the Democratic-controlled Iowa legislature. So, all is not lost!
This statement isn't true. Incest and pedophilia don't involve consenting adults, and there is a real difference between activities involving consenting adults and activities involving those are have not given consent or who are incapable of giving consent. Likewise, polygamy and polyandry involve the creation of family units that these practitioners are asking society to recognize, and asking for society's recognition is different from asking society to leave one alone to engage in certain practices. Finally, prostitution involves using sex as a form of commerce and is different from using sex simply as a personal pleasure. While most of us support laws against prostitution, most of us also believe that the government already uses the power to regulate commerce to interfere in too many aspects of our society. "Logically" for those of us who see those differences as important, those differences support making distinctions and having different policies in each of those situations.
The whole situation once again points to the problem of overreach in political goals. Most of us don't want the police breaking down doors and arresting people for being homosexual or engaging in homosexual behavior. We don't want the law turning its back on assault when the victim is homosexual and the perpetrator simply doesn't like homosexuals. On the other hand, we don't want the government trying to tell us that homosexuality is normal, natural, and healthy and don't want homosexual activists harassing churches or any other organization that doesn't pander to those activists. What we want is a society where people respect themselves enough to respect others and generally behave with a modicum of modesty. Sadly, that kind of respect and tolerance seems to be a thing of the past.
Bill
Be very afraid...
This proposed law is an attempt by the homosexual activists to reach into areas that are none of their business. While they are free to criticize what the church teaches, their using the government to force their ideas on the church is wrong. They need to mind their own business just as those who want to kick down doors to arrest homosexuals need to mind their own business. They are doing the very evil that you are trying to justify. They are refusing to respect others' right to believe and act differently from themselves. Both of you need to change if our country is going to remain a free nation.
Bill
[Between the Muslims and the Gays I’m not sure who is going to ‘destroy’ America first.]
The Queers will lower our society’s reproductive fitness and that will create weakness the Muslims can exploit.
Got it.
Nothing we do is without costs and without benefits. Whether the costs outweigh the benefits is a question that people can argue forever, but in a free society, government should do very little to coerce people to make one choice or another. Sex between consenting adults outside of Christian marriage has certain costs, but those costs are within the bounds of what we accept for all kinds of other activities. You may not like to think that people are committing fornication, homosexual sodomy, or heterosexual sodomy, but your distaste for these things is not justification for the government breaking down doors to stop them. If you aren't tolerant enough to leave people alone in their own homes, you have no place to complain when they try to interfere in your church.
Bill
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.