Monday, February 22, 2010




“ENDA the worlders…” I don’t believe it’s helpful to obsess about the kind of stuff some of the ENDA detractors posit, but knowing the arguments is critical because of their ability to mobilize a vitriolic and loud few who somehow have a way of affecting, killing or even reversing
legislation. Here are some thoughts which have been publicly stated by the following major antagonists …(my comments in italics)

1. AFA…American Family Association…from 4/5/08…quote used by Jim Brown of Matt Barber (Americans for Truth about Homosexuality & Concerned Women for America) regarding the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s opposition to a gender identity inclusive ENDA : “Apparently Ted Kennedy is at least smart enough to recognize that most Americans are still not ready for women to be forced to share public restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities with gender-confused men who like to wear dresses.” And…from the AFA founder and director Donald E. Wildmon on 5/6/08 “ENDA violates employers' and employees' Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their deeply held beliefs into account when making personnel decisions. This would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people's lives.”

2. Americans for Truth…Matt Barber’s (see above) organization as well as Peter LaBarbera’s. In 2007, LaBarbera used the catch phrase “ENDA our Freedom” in his 14 reasons to oppose ENDA, published 10/19/07. Amongst those reasons are #4 “ ENDA is unnecessary: there is no outbreak of homosexuals getting fired; in fact, it is Christians defending their faith in the public square who are getting fired and mistreated”. This is a common tactic, the inversion and transference of discrimination, turning victims into perpetrators. #10 LaBarbera goes on to say that adding trans protections “turns the bill into a ‘Transgender Bathrooms for Business’ bill.” This is part of their fear and smear campaign strategy. #14 ENDA has stolen the civil rights movement from African Americans. “Blacks cannot change their skin color. Homosexuals can leave that lifestyle behind, as many have. Conversely, people can become “gay” by embracing that ideology and lifestyle.” Another in a long list of straw arguments which is, at best, misleading, and at worst, an outright lie. There is NO consensus by experts that reparative therapy works nor any evidence suggesting a person can “become” gay, lesbian or trans. Intending to drive a wedge between the gay and trans communities, in 2008 LaBarbera stated that “the transgender movement poses a problem for the "gay" movement because when most people see "big bulky men in dresses" they immediately ‘recoil’”. Early in 2009, LaBarbera goaded his minions to write Congress about “Transsexuality-Promoting ENDA (think men in dresses entering corporate female restrooms)” And, capitalizing on and co-opting the insidious “tea party” movement, LaBarbera averred "The good news for us -- given this TEA Party movement, which is just growing by leaps and bounds -- is that ENDA plays into our arguments." He contends "ENDA is big government liberalism. It's the government being intrusive and telling small businesses and Christians and conservatives how to run their businesses."

3. The Catholic Church…in an article published in the California Catholic Daily, 10/4/07, the author states “The definition of transgender includes cross-dressers, people who have surgically destroyed all or part of their sexual anatomy, and others who are emotionally distressed about their bodily identity.” This post also includes a quote from Chuck (Dick Nixon lawyer) Colson: “the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would "place all the power of the federal government in direct opposition to the beliefs of all major faith groups in America regarding their teachings about sexuality." On 6/25/09, the Catholic Exchange posted a particularly vitriolic piece laced with lies, deception and obfuscation. For example, “Persons who present themselves in public as the other sex say they need such protections because they are afraid of violence. This fear is real. When someone is deceived — particularly in such a personal matter has the sex of an intimate partner or potential spouse — anger is an understandable reaction. Violent acts can never be condoned, but if such legislation is passed those who have been deceived will be denied any legal recourse and the deceivers will be portrayed as victims.” Another example of inversion and transference. It’s worth mentioning that this article uses Anne Lawrence and J. Michael Bailey as sources. This is a clear example of how these and others of their ilk do the trans community harm through their so called theories.

4. Concerned Women for America…again…Matt Barber, in September 2007, with Crosstalk host Vic Eliason, “ENDA would essentially grant federally protected minority status to
people based upon sexual orientation (homosexuality) or gender identity (cross- dressers), while at the same time committing wrongful discrimination against people of faith. Specifically, under ENDA, sexual morality could not be considered a factor in hiring or housing.” President Wendy Wright in the Fall of 2007 (link unavailable, but I have article archived) said “Imagine a country where it's illegal to teach your children what the Bible says about right and wrong ... where loving God's Word and living out Christian morality could cost you thousands of dollars in fines or even send you to jail.”

5. Coral Ridge Ministries…quote by Coral Ridge senior writer Robert Knight in OneNewsNow, 8/7/09 "It (ENDA) takes away the idea that sex is created by God in two different categories -- male and female -- and it makes it entirely a radical, self-determined persona. The larger problem of this is it turns private sin into a public right. It puts Christian and Jewish employers on the defensive, saying that if you don't give in and accord civil-rights privileges based on behavior that you know is sinful, 'We're coming after you. We're going to fine you. We're going to punish you.'"

6. The Culture Campaign’s publisher Dennis G. LaComb and Editor Fran Eaton posted on their website in September, 2007: “A Christian school or ministry could not refuse to hire practicing
homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers, or transsexuals. A Christian school would be powerless to discipline or dismiss a teacher if they suddenly announce they are homosexual, bisexual,
cross-dressing, or transgendered.” They continued, “You might be wondering: Are you just being sensational? Come on - a transsexual would never want to work in a Christian school anyway!

But it has already happened: John Nemecek, a 55 year old male, a
married father of three, was an associate professor at Spring Arbor
University, a Christian college in Michigan when he began dressing as a woman and calling himself "Julie." Fortunately, since ENDA is not yet law, the school was able to take appropriate action and dismiss the professor…”.

And… “Here's the bottom line: A Christian school that cannot maintain Biblical standards among teachers and administrators is no longer a Christian school.

ENDA is an assault of monumental proportions upon religious freedom. The people crafting this legislation believe that religious freedom consists only in the ability to believe certain things and attend church on Sunday. They do not understand that for a Christian, true religious freedom is the ability to LIVE according to Biblical live with integrity.”

7. Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins posted this on 9/29/09 “The false premises are that "transgender" people are "born in the wrong body." But, “"transgender" people have a mental illness which can and should be treated using gender-affirming therapy, not self-mutilating surgery.” His reference for this diagnosis? Paul McHugh, known transphobe and former clinician at Johns Hopkins University, a pioneer in trans therapy before McHugh gutted the program. Paul McHugh is quoted by FRC in the footnote regarding trans therapy “We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it."

Perkins states his problem with ENDA this way: “The principle at stake is whether personal disapproval of these chosen and harmful behaviors (homosexual conduct and sex changes) should be officially stigmatized under law as a form of bigotry that is equivalent to racism. Since such disapproval is the dominant viewpoint in the American public, explicitly taught by leading religions, and empirically supported by the negative health consequences of those behaviors, it would simply be wrong to grant special legal protection for such behaviors.”

In November 2009, FRC included this fear evoking excerpt in a newsletter:


The government prosecuting a small business owner -- perhaps a
Christian bookstore -- for declining to hire an open-homosexual or

Your employer telling you to remove the Bible from your desk
because it is offensive to the homosexual or cross-dresser he was
forced to hire.

Your church being forced to choose between hiring a man who
dresses as a woman to work in the Mother's Day Out or preschool
program or facing federal investigation.”

Just after New Years this year(2009/2010), FRC posted this:
" 'Gender identity disorder' is a recognized mental illness that should be treated-not affirmed and protected. And the right of employers to set "dress and grooming standards" for their employees should include the most basic standard of all-that people dress in a way appropriate for their biological sex.

Don't let Congress and President Obama force American employers to hire homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers.”

8. Focus on the Family, founded by James Dobson, stated: “Henceforth (after ENDA), every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a
homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence." Kelly Shackelford, president of Texas’ Free Market Foundation ( a Focus on Family affiliate) had this to say about ENDA “The original bill included "transgendered" individuals — in other words, a man who dresses like a woman, who feels like he's a woman that day. This would affect everything. It would mean your teacher in your child's school, if they were a male and felt like a female, they could go into the women's bathroom.” Focus on Family has cited "examples" wherein Christian values have allegedly been trumped by “ENDA-type policies” See footnote 13.

9. FrontPage Magazine, edited by David Horowitz. Writer Deborah Weiss had this to say about ENDA “Will it (ENDA protections) extend to the transvestites in women's bathrooms, male employees who want to wear dresses to work, transsexuals in military barracks, or male psychotics with delusions of being female? If gender is socially constructed, then the push from the left is to reconstruct it. They endorse the notion of "gender self-identification ", which dictates that you are what you think you are, even if your biology indicates otherwise.”

10. News Busters. In August 2008, Brian Fitzpatrick, writing for NB, had this to say about the media and its implied effect on ENDA. “ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the corporate owners of USA Today, the Miami Herald, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Sacramento Bee, The Dallas Morning News and many other newspapers, all spent thousands of dollars sponsoring the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention in Washington, D.C. Many journalists from these Big Media mainstays attended or spoke at the convention.

In the name of "diversity," all the organizations listed above ran recruiting booths, as did NPR. Thus, the nation's major news providers demonstrated that they have bought into the central
proposition of homosexual activists: that people engaging in homosexuality or bisexuality, along with transsexuals, are a historically oppressed minority group deserving the same preferential treatment and legal protections that society provides to ethnic minorities and women.

If Big Media views homosexuality primarily as a civil rights issue rather than as a moral and health issue, their coverage of all homosexual-related stories from HIV/AIDS to same-sex "marriage" must be viewed skeptically. How can they cover homosexual-related issues fairly if they define opponents of the activist political agenda as enemies of equal rights - in short, as bigots?” This is another version of transference…bigotry??…not me!! not here!!

11. One News Now…again from contributor Robert Knight in August 2009, “ENDA is profoundly dangerous. It turns private sin into a public right and brings the force of government against morality itself. Any such law is a violation of our unalienable rights as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. To put it more simply, a statute that directly contradicts God's moral law is illegitimate. Laws embody and reflect morality, or they are not laws. They are tyranny.” He adds, “ENDA adds not only "sexual orientation" but "gender identity" to federal workplace anti-discrimination law. Thus, it takes an ax to the idea that sexual behavior has a natural normalcy or any relation to morality. It falsely equates a changeable condition (sexual desire) with race and ethnicity. Worse, it turns traditional values into a form of bigotry punishable under the law.” Bait and switch tactics, again.

In December 2009, Matt Barber contributed to ONN with this thought “ENDA would force – under penalty of law – Christian, Jewish, or Muslim business owners to hire people who unrepentantly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite the fact that those volitional behaviors are in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology. This is no different than compelling a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an "out and proud" adulterous "swinger." It's a direct assault on the inalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.”

12. Parents and Friends of Ex Gays (PFOX) executive director Regina Griggs had this to say about ENDA in October, 2008 “This far-reaching law (ENDA) which Obama plans to pass as President will grant rights to homosexuals, transgenders, and cross-dressers, but what about ex-gays?" She was also quoted as having said, “The ex-gay community is the most bullied and maligned group in America, yet they are not protected by sexual orientation non-discrimination laws." This is complete misdirection. In July of that same year, Griggs made this statement, “"If Democrats were truly concerned about these gender confused individuals, they'd push for expanded mental health services for GID. A person can't change his or her sex – and many of these individuals think they're a woman one day and a man the next day. Why is Congress catering to such insanity?"

13. Rep. John A. Boehner(R, OH), House Minority Leader spokesperson Kevin Smith, on ENDA… from Oct 2007 “This bill represents the most dramatic revision of civil rights law in decades, opening the door to burdensome litigation, trampling on the hiring rights of faith-based organizations and undermining state marriage laws”

14. The Christian Post reiterates Robert Knight's quote from Aug. 2009 “It turns private sin into a public right and brings the force of government against morality itself."

15. Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), author unknown, from 11/29/09, “ENDA Threatens the Practice of Religion and Our Nation's Children

Written by TraditionalValues. org

Sunday, 29 November 2009 14:57

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) Threatens the Practice of Religion & Our Nation's Children

The House may be voting on passage of the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) as soon as early December before the Christmas recess.

ENDA is a direct assault on the constitutionally guaranteed free
exercise of religion. This means that you can have a belief in your
heart but not practice it.

It is key legislation favored by the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) lobby to gain federally-protected minority status for sexual behaviors that most Americans consider bizarre or abnormal.

ENDA (S. 1584) will force all businesses, schools, and other enterprises in America with 15 or more employees to submit to the LGBT political agenda.

ENDA will force businesses, public schools (pre-kindergarten through 12th grade), as well as Christian entities such as religious broadcasters, Christian bookstores, etc., to accommodate the sexual practices of cross-dressers, drag queens, transsexuals, and even she-males (individuals who undergo only a partial sex change operation). Will private Christian entities such as camps,
pre-schools, grade and high schools, be forced to hire she-males? Under ENDA it is likely.

Make no mistake about it: ENDA will also directly target public schools and help fuel the LGBT agenda on campuses. Imagine a school teacher telling students he's returning the next year as a woman. Will parents be free to opt their children out of a transsexual' s class? NO. Parents are already prevented from doing so by a similar law in California. Additionally, a recent Massachusetts court decision jailed a parent who disagreed with homosexual teaching in his child's elementary school. Will children who are offended be considered bigots who need re-education? Probably, yes.

ENDA will federalize the sexual insanity taking place in California schools - thanks to a LGBT-dominated legislature and compliant governor. Children in California schools are captive to the LGBT political agenda. If ENDA passes, transsexuals, drag queens, cross-dressers and she-males will be federally-protected minority groups and can freely exploit our nation's public school kids.

ENDA is proposing newly invented rights for individuals who engage in a variety of bizarre sex acts. ENDA pits constitutional rights of religious freedom and free speech against individuals who cross-dress or engage in dangerous sexual activities.”

16. WorldNetDaily, Christian News Service contributor Mychal Massie wrote this in September 2007 : “ While the nation's news outlets are riveted on the Jena 6 and O.J Simpson, an insidious undermining of the workplace advances virtually unnoticed.

That creeping darkness is the federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, H.R. 2015. If the proposed measure becomes law, it will add "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity" as a category to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It would give special employment rights to homosexuals and the transgendered that would not only harm the integrity of faith-based organizations, but it would specifically undermine an employer's ability to grow his/her
business in a productive and profitable way.

Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public
accommodations, and the desegregation of public facilities and schools. They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a particular lifestyle.

Homosexuals and cross-dressers may in fact be a lot of things, but a oppressed minority they are not. And I, for one, resent their temerity in suggesting that a rejection of their chosen lifestyle is in any way equivalent to what truly oppressed peoples in this country went through for the right to vote, sit at a lunch counter and/or stay in the hotel of their choice.

Homosexuals are not immutable – there is a difference between refusing to change one's behavior and being unable to change the color of one's skin. They are no more economically deprived than others, and they certainly do not have a history of political and historical powerlessness. Ergo, sexual orientation is not a civil right. Homosexual activists represent one of the most powerful lobbies per capita in the country. But I digress.

ENDA would apply to businesses with 15 or more employees and would make it illegal for employers "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individuals' actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."

In layman's terms, said lawyer-speak means, if ENDA becomes law (and I am in no way attempting to inject humor here), the branch manager of your local bank could, without fear of penalty, come to work looking like "Boy George in Liza Minnelli 1980s drag makeup, complete in his working girl commuter-friendly disco sneakers." And there wouldn't be a thing the bank could do or say about it – no matter how offended its customers might be or how uncomfortable it would make the other employees.

Passage of ENDA means that the surgeon scheduled to perform your operation could decide to do same in his blond wig with full mascara and his Playtex plus-size bra, and there wouldn't be a thing the hospital could say or do.

It means that your child's second-grade teacher could decide she was going to dress like a man, complete with makeup to simulate facial hair, and the school would have no recourse. And it goes without saying that the owner of a local Bible bookstore would be powerless to prevent a homosexual employee from holding hands with his or her homosexual lover within the workplace. Any attempt to prevent said behavior would result in immediate litigation.

Some may say, "That wouldn't happen – Massie's citing ridiculous and imaginary examples simply to scare the public." My response to that reasoning is that if the examples I have delineated are not intended and expected outcomes of those supporting ENDA, then why is there a need for such legislation? Businesses are already prohibited from hiring, firing or making employment decisions based on race, sex, color, national origin, age, religion or disability.

Business owners and companies are in business to be successful, and, accordingly, there are acceptable protocols pursuant to same within the martinet of said business culture. To legislate the undermining of this culture is unprincipled, but obviously not out of character for many of today's legislators.

Homosexuals enjoy the same basic rights and privileges of heterosexuals within the context of the mores and traditions of civilized society, but that doesn't mean everyone must love, cherish
or ingratiate themselves to every other group within that society. It is perfectly legitimate to disapprove of someone for whatever reason.

To disapprove of an individual's aberrant sexual proclivities is not synonymous with rejecting the individual. In all of the countless discussions and debates in which I have participated, I have never heard it once said that homosexuals are xenobiotic or xenogenetic – the discussions center on the act itself and an unwillingness to be forced into an acceptance of said act as natural.

ENDA is the latest attempt to have the federal government enforce what businesses and individuals overwhelmingly reject, i.e., mandated acceptance of a particular lifestyle to the exclusion of their core beliefs and principles. Homosexual activists are demanding the government mandate that rational Americans reject the reality they know to be true and believe that men can be women and vice versa.

If ENDA passes, organizations like the Boy Scouts, youth camps, religious bookstores and faith-based services would immediately fall victim to liberal courts eager to do the bidding of those who seek to alter the accepted sexual construct representative of civilized society.

Organizations and companies that have served the public for decades would be forced into adopting that which they are opposed to, or lose their ability to continue serving the public. Where is the civil right in that?”

Links for source material:














14. http://www.worldnet fa=PAGE.view& pageId=65690










Saturday, February 06, 2010


I think one thing many will agree upon is the critical need for change…personally, publicly, politically, and socially. If these times seem to portend great decisions, a fork in the road perhaps, I think many of us have felt it coming. I don’t mean this in any kind of apocalyptic sense, merely that we are at a crossroads, and that making a conscious effort to pay attention to what’s going on may be more important now than it has been in the recent past. We may be called on to have a bit more intentionality than the kind of whimsical existences to which we’ve become accustomed.

With that in mind, this new year I have decided to take my writing in a more personal direction. Over the past year, we have heard the word “reset” ad nauseum. It seems to me that what is really needed is a return to basics: honesty, tolerance, compassion, empathy and love. Maybe it’s time to reevaluate what “values” really mean, given how that word gets bandied about.

I’m a child of the sixties…I guess you could say I was/am a “dyed in the wool” hippie…a denizen of avant-garde, cutting edge and what has come to be called “counter culture”. We lived our beliefs…we wore them on our sleeves. And we had a dream. I will admit to a sense of naiveté we might have had, but we also had passion and guts, and, above all, vision. We saw a world that embraced diversity, believed all living beings had rights and didn’t worship acquistion. We saw an end to poverty and hunger and embraced equal opportunity for all. We saw a world in which love prevailed.

Just as all organisms have birth, life and death, so do movements…in the early seventies John Lennon penned the words…”the dream is over”… and for all appearances it was. The summer of love and the end of a decade had both ended in disaster. Young men were dying by the thousands. Antiwar activism merged into Watergate and the co-opting of politics escalated. JFK’s axiom of “what can I do for my country” morphed into “what can I do for myself”. The seventies turned into the eighties. Too many of us lost our enthusiasm and sold out for the illusory corporate security the Reagan years seemed to promise. Too many opted for the new opiate of the masses, namely “stuff”. For some, however, the dream never died. We still believed that all you need is love and we still imagined. We were looking for new ways and new paradigms. We became the lost generation.

A sage and acquaintance, a person whose life experiences gives him rare insights into the cyclical nature of events, used to say, in 1980, that these were the sixties, only 20 years later. It’s 2010 and we again seem to be on the threshold of a new paradigm. Is this the sixties, only fifty years later? The dream is STILL not over.

Equality for all is again the call of this newly clothed old dream. Equality for everyone regardless of race, religion, sex, gender, physical attributes…regardless of anything. This includes the presupposition that we have more in common than we acknowledge. It includes an understanding that we’re all in this together. And, above all, it includes an affirmation encouraging diversity and freedom of self expression.

This is, essentially, what being trans means to me…the realization and acceptance that my essential being in the world is no more or less valid than anyone else’s. It just is. We need to reach out to each other to facilitate that kind of non-judgement, however, and I see being trans as a potential bridge to help us get over that what divides us. It’s like a puzzle which is missing pieces and is unintelligible. Put the pieces in the right place and voila…you have a “lightbulb” moment…we finally see the entire picture. Being trans may facilitate an intuitive resolution of an apparent paradox; there is in some sense a union of opposites. What appeared as paradox, however, maybe isn’t. Realizing this may have the power to release us from the constraints society so often imposes upon us.

Saying that I’m transexual does not wholly define me. It is merely part of who I am, that which helps to constitute me as an individual. I am not limited to any one part of what makes me that person; in actuality, the whole is probably greater than the sum of the parts, as is the case with everyone. To try to reduce my essentiality only to my gender identity would diminish me. Again, that is only part of who I am. I am neither proud nor ashamed to be transsexual. There is no value attachment because accountability is only predicated by actions. One of the reasons the use of the word “pride” has always concerned me is the slippery slope that always accompanies pride…elitism and separatism. All living beings have dignity and all living beings have rights.

The dream I still dream is for a world which strives for understanding, which values personal relationships over stuff, and in which money is not deified. It’s a world whose peoples embrace diversity and differences. This world accepts the importance of building bridges; it acknowledges that being trans may be one of those bridges that has the power to bring individuals together. And this world will realize that the effort to strive for a more perfect union, a more perfect society, or a more perfect universe requires setting aside our elitist and separatist claims on what it means to be a human being and losing that penchant for judging others. Lastly, this world thinks that being trans, or any other way of being in the world (of course, excluding those whose way hurts others), is really no big deal.