AdvanceUSAAmericans Defending Values and National Conservative Efforts
Home PageAbout UsLinksMediaActionSurveyDonateBlogContact Us









 Tuesday, August 19, 2008
posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:31:28 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Friday, August 01, 2008
posted on Friday, August 01, 2008 6:00:54 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, June 17, 2008
As this NPR article demonstrates, when “gay rights” and religious liberty conflict, religious liberty usually loses.  This is an important fact to emphasize as gay couples are now obtaining marriage licenses in California.

A few examples cited by NPR:

A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.

 

A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

 

And then there's the case of a wedding photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.

posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:26:40 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
CitizenLink reports.  If the dangerous “hate (thought) crimes” and ENDA legislation now in Congress gets passed into law, we could see similar persecution in the United States.

posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:14:07 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Two preachers in England were threatened with arrest for “hate crimes” for witnessing to Muslims.  Let’s hope “hate crimes” legislation doesn’t spread to America.

posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:20:13 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Daniel Herbster reporting

Exodus International is the largest network of former homosexuals in the world and assists local ministries around the world in helping people overcome same-sex attraction and the homosexual lifestyle through a relationship with Christ.  They also use their unique expertise to speak out on important cultural and societal issues.  I’ve had the opportunity to work with members of Exodus on a number of occasions so it’s great to be able to interview my friend Randy Thomas who is Vice President of Exodus.  The following is my interview with Randy.

DH: Randy, how long has Exodus been in existence and how did it get started?

RT: In 1976, sixty-two ministry leaders met in California to talk about their efforts to help those dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction and how they, as independent ministries, could network to help one another in this effort. The vision and name for Exodus was born out of obvious parallels that could be drawn from the Children of Israel leaving Egypt and entering the Promise Land.  These visionaries had the accurate view that being “gay” should not be the only option for those with same sex attractions.  They knew that our “Promise Land” was the knowledge of and relationship with Jesus Christ.  They knew that there was so much more to life than what a gay ideology was offering and so they developed the network we now know as Exodus.  Thirty-three years later our network has over 200 member agencies across North America who reach thousands of people seeking help.  We are also affiliated with other ministries around the world who offer this perspective on homosexuality to a world hungering for positive alternatives.

Sixty-two people cast a vision that has now helped millions of people and educated millions more about biblical sexuality.

DH: One of the tenants of our modern, politically correct culture holds that sexual orientation is inherent and unchangeable but “gender identity” is unfixed and can change.  Do you think this is true, and how does Exodus’s unique perspective relate to this issue?

RT: Recently I wrote on my personal blog a post called “The Transgender Double Standard.”  In it I shared, ‘It’s always astounded me how willing some in the gay activist community are to celebrate someone surgically altering their body to “become” who they perceive to be internally.  Yet when I determine I want to reorient my sexual orientation, which does not require drastic surgery or body altering drugs, according to those same activists, I am the one doing damage to myself and others by simply holding to a particular worldview that brings me contentment and sexual reorientation.  The transgendered are applauded for radically altering their bodies while I am scolded for holding the belief that I would be happier living out who I truly am regardless of my past life as a gay identified man.  It¹s ok for someone to ignore what they were obviously born as, but for people like me - we are told being “gay” is genetic and should be embraced because we have no other option.’

This is a terrible conundrum for militant gay activism because their own moral relativism is being exposed.  We were all created with free will.  We all have the ability to define right and wrong for ourselves.  The issue with moral relativism is that eventually it will prove out to be hypocritical because it is self based moral judgments instead of God¹s creative intent which is unchanging.  Sixteen years ago I decided that maybe God’s intent for my sexuality and identity just might be beyond my own seemingly logical conclusions.  I started to question everything in life and attempting to live out my identity and sexuality in accordance with my faith.  My identity has completely changed in that I am not a “gay” man anymore.  I am a Christian.  I will hopefully be known as a man of God.  My sexual orientation has shifted a great deal as a byproduct of my pursuing purity and holiness.

Notice I said shifted.  I am not above temptation and if temptation happens, I know why and what to do about it.  Regardless, homosexuality does not have the power to determine who I am or how I steward my sexuality.

DH: Would you mind telling us about your background and how you came to work at Exodus?

posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1:59:48 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Wednesday, April 30, 2008
CitizenLink warns us of this serious and dangerous issue.  Hate crimes legislation is misguided and a very real threat to religious freedom and “equal justice under law.”

posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:49:31 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, February 05, 2008
CitizenLink has two stories that illustrate the dangers to religious freedom implicit to “hate crimes” and “non-discrimination” laws that pertain to sexual orientation.

·         Dangerous legislation could force charities that run soup kitchens and homeless shelters to hire homosexuals

·         Teachers in U.K. Told to Avoid Saying 'Mom' and 'Dad'

posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:44:52 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Friday, December 07, 2007
Our friends on the Hill informed us yesterday that the House and Senate conferees working on the Department of Defense authorization bill have removed the dangerous and unrelated hate (thought) crimes extension language.  The Associated Press reports here.  As The Hill reports (subscription required):

House and Senate votes on the 2008 defense authorization bill could be held as early as next week after conferees agreed Thursday to strip from the bill a controversial provision extending hate-crimes protections to gays.

This is an important victory for religious freedom, and AdvanceUSA thanks all those who contacted their elected officials and voiced their views.

posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 2:42:44 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Wednesday, November 21, 2007
As the Hill reports, wrangling over the dangerous hate (thought) crimes provisions in the Senate version of the Dept. of Defense reauthorization bill are delaying final passage of that important funding bill.

posted on Thursday, November 22, 2007 12:40:12 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Friday, November 16, 2007
This article from Human Events explains the latest developments regarding dangerous hate crimes legislation and its current status.  Excerpt:

The Massachusetts Democrat [Sen. Kennedy] smeared the military to win votes for his “hate crimes” amendment to the National Defense Authorization Bill for 2008.  The ploy, unfortunately, worked.  Sixty senators supported his “hate crimes” amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, which is now in conference committee. 

posted on Friday, November 16, 2007 7:17:10 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. voices his concerns with a number of issues he sees as a threat to religious freedom.  Doubtless the ENDA bill and hate crimes legislation are clear and present dangers to free religious expression, and the movement to resurrect the discredited “fairness doctrine” is a blatant affront to free speech.  Read Jackson’s full column here.

For more information on religious freedom click here or here.

posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:28:14 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Tuesday, October 30, 2007
The Washington Blade (homosexual news publication) explains the strategy of the “gay rights” agenda while offering critique to help proponents obtain the ultimate goal of same-sex marriage.  The article suggests a “incremental” approach in which marriage and civil unions are not discussed until the public is “ready.”

A suggested plan of attack includes these stages of building in this order:

  1. Hate Crimes
  2. ENDA
  3. Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
  4. Permanent Partners Immigration Act
  5. Civil Unions
  6. Repeal Defense of Marriage Act and Overturn State Marriage Amendments

Click here to read the full explanation.

posted on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 9:55:45 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
Lawyer and author Wendy Kaminer has a very helpful piece in the Wall Street Journal exposing the dangers and misconceptions relating to hate crimes legislation now in Congress.  She also makes the case that civil libertarians wary of government intrusion into personal rights should support their social conservative cohorts in opposing hate crimes.

She addresses the charge that the current hate crimes bill does not deal with speech but only violent crime.  She explains this view but then concludes:

Still, distinguishing hateful bias crimes from other hateful acts of violence punishes ideas and expression, no matter how scrupulously the legislation is crafted. When someone convicted of assaulting one woman is subject to an enhanced prison sentence or a more vigorous prosecution because his assault was motivated by a hateful belief in the inherent inferiority of all women, then he is being punished for his thoughts as well as his conduct.

Hate crimes should really be called “thought crimes” or “bias crimes” as noted here:

…without directly criminalizing speech, the proposed Matthew Shepard Act (like other hate-crime laws) does effectively and intentionally criminalize bias, when bias is shown to bear a direct relationship to a violent crime.

The hate crimes bill could also threaten the important constitutional principle prohibiting “double jeopardy;” being prosecuted twice for the same crime:

But freedom of thought is not the only liberty at stake in this debate. The Matthew Shepard Act would also subject defendants to double jeopardy for a single offense. The bill expressly states that defendants prosecuted in state court may be prosecuted for the same crime in federal court, if federal officials determine that "the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to state charges left demonstrably unvindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence."

She concludes her piece noting that the killers of Matthew Shephard were tried and convicted to the full extent of the law.

Matthew Shepard's killers were convicted of homicide and kidnapping by the state of Wyoming and are serving consecutive life sentences. His torture and murder remain awful to contemplate, but civil libertarians ought not be squeamish about questioning the consequences of the law that would bear his name.

How would a hate crimes law have punished them any more?

For more on hate crimes click here or here.

posted on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:21:15 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Thursday, October 11, 2007

Attorney and author John W. Whitehead shares his insights on the danger of hate crimes legislation, especially the recent hate crimes legislation passed by the Senate.

posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:01:09 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Friday, October 05, 2007

Fox News reports on a tangled murder case that illustrates the confusion and nonsense that hate crimes laws can cause.  Criminals should be prosecuted for what they do, not what they think.  CitizenLink also explains how this case relates to the hate crimes legislation recently passed by the Senate.

posted on Friday, October 05, 2007 6:47:53 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Alan Sears does an excellent job explaining what is wrong with hate (thought) crimes legislation and what is specifically so dangerous about the current version passed by the U.S. Senate.

posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:30:22 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Thursday, September 27, 2007

The United States Senate voted this morning on an amendment to the Defense bill that would make hate (thought) crimes based on “perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity” a federal matter.  Unfortunately the amendment passed by a vote of 60 - 39.  Fortunately, there appear to be sufficient votes to sustain the veto the president has promised. To see how your senators voted see the vote chart below.

For more information on hate crimes click here or check the other blog posts in the hate crimes category.

Senate Cloture Vote on the Kennedy Amendment (S.A. 3035) adding federal hate crimes language to a war funding bill (60 votes needed to pass - PASSED)
September 27, 2007
Full Results | News Story

 

 

Yeas

Nays

PRES

NV

Republican

9

39

 

1

Democratic

 

50

Independent

 

1

TOTALS

 

60

39

1

posted on Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:40:37 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Startling new developments have arisen regarding the hate (thought) crimes bill.  Today Sen. Harry Reid offered hate crimes legislation as an amendment to the Defense Department reauthorization bill.  Because of the method he used to offer this amendment, it could be voted on as early as Wednesday but certainly by Thursday.

Please make every effort to call both your senators today and urge them to vote "No" on Senate Amendment 3035 (i.e. "hate crimes amendment") to the Department of Defense reauthorization bill! 

Hate crimes laws are unjust, constitutionally questionable, and a subtle, yet very real, threat to religious freedom.  For more information on hate (thought) crimes legislation check the AdvanceUSA home page or the hate crimes category at AdvanceUSA Blog.

To protect equal justice under the law and religious freedom, please call your senators today!

posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:27:41 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) today tried to offer his hate crimes bill as an amendment to the Department of Defense (DOD) reauthorization bill.  Fortunately, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was on hand to object to the unanimous consent motion required to consider the amendment “pending.”  After this objection Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) stormed onto the Senate floor vowing to get the hate crimes bill onto the DOD bill and said the hate crimes bill related to military funding because it sought to combat “domestic terrorism” supposedly aimed at homosexuals.  Here is an excerpt from Sen. Kennedy’s remarks:

I have every intention, with Senator Smith, at some time of offering the hate crimes legislation. I know the question comes up why are we offering hate crime legislation on a defense authorization bill? Well, the answer is very simple. the defense authorization bill is dealing with the challenges of terrorism and the hate crimes issue, to try and get a handle on the problems of hate crimes, we're talking about domestic terrorism, domestic terrorism.

Apparently Sen. Kennedy thinks those who oppose the federal prosecution of suspected thoughts and beliefs, who seek to uphold “equal justice under law,” and who oppose granting special legal privileges to sexual preference, are terrorists akin to Al-Quaida and the Taliban.

posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:25:40 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Friday, August 24, 2007

This video tells the story of Joe and Helen Roberts in Britain who were given a stern warning by police for politely voicing their opposition to the active promotion of homosexuality by their local government.  Their story is frightening evidence of why hate crimes laws such as S. 1105 (now in the Senate) should not be passed in America.  Though S. 1105 may or may not directly threaten speech in the pulpit (there is still some debate among legal experts), hate crimes laws will no doubt lead to the adoption of “hate speech” monitoring or laws which would directly obstruct the rights of Christians to share biblical truth.  

Hate crimes laws also violate the principle of “equal justice under law” by prosecuting criminals who commit the same crimes differently based solely on perceived internal beliefs.  For more information on hate crimes click here.


posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 6:49:28 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

Tony Perkins, President of FRC, comments on the dangerous hate (thought) crimes legislation in the U.S. Senate using evidence from Congressional hearings.

posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 1:28:43 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Much has been made of the tragic story of Matthew Shepherd.  The Senate hate (thought) crimes bill in Congress has even been named after him.  But a recent article by Peter Sprigg from FRC explains how Shepherd’s murder, citing an ABC news investigation, probably had nothing to do with his homosexuality at all.  Sprigg also compares the Shepherd case to a similar one in the same town just three months later in which a woman was sexually abused and left to die in the cold while her killer was only given a few years in prison rather than the life-sentences given to Shepherd’s killers.

For more information on hate crimes check the AdvanceUSA pro-religious freedom page.

posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:26:31 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Friday, July 13, 2007

Do you think the federal government should be able to prosecute people for their beliefs?  Do you think some citizens should receive more legal protection than others?  All these things could happen if the Senate passes S. 1105, the hate (thought) crimes bill.  Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Smith (R-OR) have proposed adding this legislation to the Defense Reauthorization bill (H.R. 1585, currently being debated) as Amendment 2067.

Besides the important “equal justice” concerns, there is reason to believe that hate crimes laws such as S. 1105 could infringe on our cherished rights of religious freedom as similar laws have been used to prosecute Christians for proclaiming a Biblical perspective on homosexuality.

Call both your senators today and urge them to vote “No” on Amendment 2067!


For more information on hate crimes and this particular bill, check the hate crime material on the AdvanceUSA home page.

posted on Friday, July 13, 2007 8:16:26 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Wednesday, June 13, 2007

The High Impact Leadership Coalition (a coalition of black religious leaders) has just released this exceptional advertisement that seeks to awaken people to the very real dangers of hate (thought) crimes legislation.  Stopping “hate crimes” sounds like a noble goal but in actuality it would pose serious threats to religious freedom.  Furthermore, the whole concept of hate crimes is inherently unjust and unconstitutional because if violates our cherished principle of “equal justice under law.”

Thought crimes bills are a clear and present danger to constitutional principles and religious freedom.  For more information on thought crimes
click here or visit AdvanceUSA’s religious freedom page.

Note: The current hate crimes bill (
S. 1105) is now in the Senate, but it is unclear when the Senate will actually consider the legislation.  AdvanceUSA will be watching carefully for any further developments.

posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:17:56 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Thursday, June 07, 2007

Ken Blackwell offers his insightful perspective on the hate crimes bill recently passed by the House.  The Senate is now faced with the bill and is expected to consider it this year, perhaps within the next month or two.

posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:38:38 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Monday, May 14, 2007