What People Are Commenting
donate Books CDs HOME updates search contact

The Senate’s Trojan Horse



Note from the Editor: In a 61-30 vote on Monday, November 4, 2013, the U.S. Senate approved the Employment Non-Discrimination Act - ENDA, which creates privileges for homosexuals. According to this bill, no employer can fire an employee or refuse to hire him on the grounds that he is a homosexual.

The bill now moves to the House of Representatives, where House Speaker John Boehner said he will oppose it. There will be, therefore, a conflict between the Senate and the House on the bill, as there is in other issues such as gun control and immigration. The question is thus largely open to discussion.

We encourage our readers to write their representatives now, telling them not to approve it since the measure goes against Natural Law and Catholic Morals.

Below are the arguments our friend Gary Morella sent to his Senators. Although the resolution was approved by the Senate, these reasons remain valid and may inspire others to write similar letters to their representatives. - A.S.G.


______________________


Oppose S. 815: Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013


I sent a letter to my representatives telling them to vote NO on ENDA (links here and here). How about you? Do this for the sake of a country fit to live in for your children, grandchildren, and future generations of Americans, NOT Godless communist automatons.

To my Senators:

I oppose S. 815: Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 because it's bad public policy.

Responsible parents justly discriminate between right and wrong behavior all the time; else they cease being responsible. Similarly, responsible States must do the same for the sake of the common good which is supposed to be the State's highest priority as understood from the time of Aristotle's Politics.

Accordingly, people of faith can justly discriminate against that which flouts their faith per their Constitutional right. This right they're not required to check at the door upon entering public life.

ENDA would be seen as an extension of the laws on civil rights; it would bring an extension of the federal power over hiring and firing in private firms; and it would bring into play the same apparatus of legal remedies applied by the federal courts. What happens to the freedom of religion right of those private firms that would be obliterated on an altar of hedonism, since rights without duties toward the common good are no rights at all?

The purpose of ENDA is to include "sexual orientation" as a protected class under employment discrimination laws. But ENDA is really bad business. It grants those inclined to homosexual acts the benefits of minority class status -- based solely upon their behavior.

Those inclined to homosexual acts are not a model of a disadvantaged minority class. Disregarding the gay rights rhetoric, their movement is nothing more than a powerful special interest lobby intent on using its money and political influence to "piggyback" on legitimate gains of the truly disadvantaged. They can only gain these special rights and privileges at the expense of others.

Homosexual "rights" are not about equality under the law, which homosexuals already possess, but about special privileges and legitimation of their lifestyle. Clamoring for this protected status borders on the ridiculous when seen in the light of logic.

If we cannot discriminate against proven changeable aberrant behavior that has been shown to be physically, psychologically, socially and economically ruinous, i.e., behavior that is contrary to the promotion of the common good, then our system of positive law collapses. Implicit in the very definition of behavior is the presumption that behavior can be categorized as good or bad, right or wrong. Without this gauge, anarchy exists, with the freedom for the autonomous unencumbered self being the only concern.

Orientation implies a "lasting direction of thought, inclination or interest." There are any number of references in the scientific literature that totally refute this definition in the context of a homosexual orientation. To say such a description is problematic is being kind, in view of the wide disagreement in the literature with absolutely no definitive proof that anything resembling a "gay gene" exists, which is admitted by many homosexually inclined researchers themselves.

A civilized society must justly "discriminate" in favor of health over disease, right over wrong, moral over immoral, discriminate use of sexuality over indiscriminate sexual expression. The death and dying statistics speak to the consequences of non-discrimination in this context.

Vote NO on ENDA!

     Gary L. Morella
     Retired Research Faculty, Penn State University

Posted November 5, 2013

______________________



The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA

Related Work of Interest

Vatican II, Homosexuality & Pedophilia