The new administration in Virginia has wasted no time taking on the biggest sacred cow of the politically correct public university crowd – the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in so-called “non-discrimination” policies. In a letter to the Commonwealth’s public universities, as reported in the Washington Post, Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli has advised that the setting of state public policy is done at the General Assembly, not in college board rooms, Apparently the General Assembly has rejected bills that include sexual orientation and/or gender identity a total of 25 times since 1997. Cuccinelli’s advice:

I am aware that several Virginia colleges and universities have included “sexual orientation” in their respective policies. For the reasons stated, any college or university that has done so has acted without proper authority…Accordingly, I would advise the Boards of each college to take appropriate actions to bring their policies in conformance with the law and the public policy of Virginia.

The Virginia chapter of the ACLU is predictably indignant over this development. Exec. Director Kent Willis:

“Regardless of state law or policy, not only should universities prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but they are required to do so under the U.S. Constitution.”

Required, eh? That’s quite a stretch.

And if you don’t remember what the problem is with those non-discrimination policies, let me remind you.

In 2007, seven Christians were arrested for praying at a gay pride event in a public park in Elmira, New York. The event was open to the public, and the seven found a grassy spot near the stage to kneel or lay down to pray and read their Bibles.

Apparently afraid that the LGBT crowd might react in a hostile manner, the Elmira police arrested all seven of the Christians and charged them with disorderly conduct. Three copped a plea; four stood trial and were convicted. Of those four, three had their convictions overturned on appeal, and the fourth, Julian Raven, is appealing to New York’s highest court with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund. Mr. Raven’s conviction was not overturned in the lower court proceeding because he alone of the seven had been warned by a police officer not to go into the park (a violation of Raven’s rights, by the way).

I don’t know how many news stories I’ve read where Christian or conservative speakers are shouted down (or worse) by Lefties of all persuasions who show up for that single purpose, and who are never arrested or removed from the premises for actual, you know, disorderly conduct. But let a Christian rile things up by just showing up to silently pray for the people at an event, and the very essence of democracy is threatened.

The growing hostility toward religion in this country by those in government who are sworn to protect our religious freedoms is appalling.

In case you were wondering where homosexual activism in public schools can eventually lead, Maine is giving a pretty good preview right now:

“… a boy who identifies himself as a girl is by law allowed to use girls bathrooms, locker rooms and participate on girls sports teams, or vice versa.”  That’s the summary from Maine’s Bangor Daily News, reporting on school guidelines currently under development by Maine’s Human Rights Commission.

So now we are on the cusp of allowing boys into girls restrooms based on their stated identity choice of the day. It’s hard to imagine an environment more sexually confusing for kids—or fraught with risky situations— than that.

At issue is the Maine Human Rights Commission’s efforts to adopt guidelines for schools on how to deal with gender-confused students. While they are being touted as just “guidelines,” the reality is that schools found in violation of the commission’s policies are more vulnerable to losing a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, according to the Bangor Daily News report,  gay activist groups—in particular, the local Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) chapter—have helped develop these guidelines. (GLSEN is the controversial group founded by “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings. It is devoted to promoting homosexuality and ”transgender” behavior to kids all the way down to the kindergarten level.)

The Maine School Management Association has raised concerns that the Human Rights Commission is overstepping its bounds by giving schools specific mandates. And then there’s concerns from both secondary schools and colleges about “fairness” issues in sports  and how teams are classified under NCAA guidelines.

This is just some of the chaos we will continue to see if identity politics and homosexual activism are given free rein in our public school systems.

For more about how transgender-activism is affecting schools’ and states’ policies, check out our “Transgender” Madness commentary.

The 3-page order is here.

In a nutshell, Chief Justice Roberts thinks that the petitioners’ (those asking for a stay of the new DC same-sex marriage law) argument “has some force.”

But then he goes on to remark on the uniqueness of DC’s governance. Historically, the Supreme Court has deferred to the courts within DC on matters of local concern. Second, he highlights the unique relationship of DC to Congress, who had the opportunity to stop this new law from going into effect but did not do so.

Finally, he says that this case hasn’t really ended. Although the petitioners’ quest for a ballot referendum (vote to kill the new law)  is now moot, a ballot initiative to restore the traditional definition of marriage will still wend its way through the DC courts on the legal issue of whether the DC Human Rights Code trumps the charter provisions on ballot issues, and the Supreme Court may have an opportunity to get involved at that stage.

We could end up with another California situation with same-sex marriage existing for a time before a return to one-man, one-woman marriage.

The new DC same-sex marriage law takes effect on Wednesday.

My earlier post on this issue is located here.

An appeal was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund yesterday with Chief Justice John Roberts over the District’s refusal to let the people vote on the issue of marriage.

Here’s what’s going on. The D.C. Council passed a law allowing same-sex marriage in the District. Bishop Harry Jackson, on behalf of himself and other District residents, asked for a referendum so that the voters of the District could decide on marriage. The request was denied in an administrative hearing. Jackson appealed to a trial court and asked as part of the lawsuit for an injunction blocking the law going into effect this Wednesday. The court denied it. Jackson appealed to the District’s appeals court on the injunction issue. Lost again. Now Jackson is asking the Supreme Court to look at the refusal to grant an injunction.

The District is unique in its governance. It has its own charter (the equivalent of a state constitution) and its own statutes, but Congress oversees the District and has the final say (if it wants to) over any laws the Council passes. Congress did not take any definitive action on the new law.

The standards for injunctions are pretty unique, and it’s hard for me to generalize about any of the legal developments in this case. But the basic issue looks like it comes down to this: Does a District statute (its non-discrimination code) trump the District’s own charter (which grants its citizens the right to hold voter initiatives and referenda)? The District, and the 2 courts who have ruled thus far, say “yes.”

There could be lots of other issues that complicate the basic question, and I have to hedge my bets here until I get to read some of the pleadings in the case,  but if a non-discrimination statute can trump a charter provision, then charters (and constitutions) are essentially meaningless documents.

And that’s a scary thing.

On USA Today’s “Faith and Reason” blog, Betty Klinck reports on a campaign backed by numerous powerful and high profile homosexual and “transgender” rights groups.  The goal?  To persuade Christian church leaders and laity to take action on political issues so homosexuality will be normalized and affirmed in every area of society.

According to the “Believe Out Loud” website, this propaganda push is a

“multi-year and multi-tiered social marketing campaign to influence the attitudes, beliefs, and eventually governing policies of mainline Protestant clergy to welcome LGBT individuals into their fold.”

Don’t get me wrong, it would be one thing if this campaign were merely about the well-meaning and long-overdue “welcome” of people who experience same-sex attraction and gender incongruity. Those of us who hold a biblically orthodox view of human sexuality agree that all should be welcome in Christ’s church – regardless of our struggles or background.

But that’s a far cry from what “Believe Out Loud” is pushing.  They’ve said it’s not enough to accept, or even welcome and affirm. No, they’re demanding that Christian churches honor and openly celebrate a view of human sexuality which is clearly out of line with God’s created intent.

To achieve this goal, “Believe Out Loud” offers talking points and detailed “meaningful personal actions” aimed at clergy and lay leaders so they can convince those under their spiritual care that revisionist theology is biblical.  And, so they can encourage their followers to participate in efforts to put pro-LGBT social policies into law.

Through these resources, a well-funded, well-packaged and breathtakingly deceptive revision of Scripture is being pedaled like snake oil to many who trust in the spiritual authority of their clergy and lay leaders. By casting doubt on God’s Word, these wolves in sheep’s clothing put both feet and money to what is ultimately a secular political campaign – one that would normally have liberals howling for the separation of church and state.

But the most tragic aspect of this campaign is the spiritual toll.  By invoking themes like social justice to promote gay and “transgender” equality, God’s own definition of social justice is completely ignored.

True biblical social justice results in bringing God’s righteousness and order to bear in every arena of the culture.  If we really want to see social justice implemented in our churches, we must center it around speaking God’s truth in love about His purposes for sexuality, marriage and family.

The church does no favors to those who self-identify as gay or “transgender” by capitulating to the pro-homosexual culture and altering biblical truth on a topic as fundamental as how we bear His image as male and female.

By adopting this revisionist view, the church withholds from LGBT people the opportunity to repent of this particular area of sin and place it under the lordship of Christ. In the end, this denies people we love the fullness of life that comes with walking in obedience to God.  Do we really want to deny the blessings, freedom and peace that come with His forgiveness, grace, mercy, compassion and love?

Believers beware: the message of “Believe Out Loud” is one with grave and eternal consequences. In separating the wheat from the tares, it points to the time foretold in Scripture when even the elect might be deceived – with people throwing off sound doctrine and, instead, gathering around themselves teachers who tell them what their ears want to hear.  Knowing this, let’s be those who correctly “examine the Scriptures” to make sure what we’re being taught is true.

First it was: How will the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts impact this summer’s choice of a replacement for the almost-certainly retiring Justice Stevens? Then there was speculation that there might be TWO vacancies, Stevens and Ginsburg.

Now we hear from another Supreme Court expert, Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog that the President’s domestic policy problems this year will augur for a moderate nominee with no baggage involving controversial positions, like – Elena Kagan.

Stop. What?

Does he mean the same Elena Kagan who e-mailed the entire Harvard Law School faculty and student body (she was the law school Dean)  about her “deep distress” over the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. She said she “abhorred” DADT  and called it a “profound wrong – a moral injustice of the first order.” She signed on to a Supreme Court legal brief opposing the DADT-related Solomon Amendment (requiring universities that accept federal funding to allow military recruiters on campus), a position that the Supreme Court rejected 9-0. Let me say that again. She was dead wrong  by a 9-0 vote.

And it’s not just the fact that she was 180 degrees wrong on the constitutional arguments about DADT, but the underlying cause for it that’s important. In case you’re not quite understanding this, let me say it plainly:  Her support for the homosexual agenda is so strong that it clouds her ability to think impartially on the subject. As I discussed in a previous post referenced above, she and Professor Feldblum, another much-discussed potential nominee, are near-certain votes for all things gay.

With the Perry marriage case working its way toward the Supreme Court over the next few years, I’m thinking that if President Obama is looking for a moderate this summer, a sure vote to redefine marriage is a non-starter for most Americans.

(note: to prevent a few unnecessary reader e-mails, I’m aware that the Solomon amendment case came out differently at the Third Circuit. But when you lose Justice Ginsburg and the other three SCOTUS libs, you’re not even close.)

George Weigel, a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., has an important column up today on the attempts by the Left both at home and abroad to define religious freedom down to merely the freedom to worship, as part of the Left’s battle to normalize homosexual behavior. His key conclusion:

Religious freedom, rightly understood, cannot be reduced to freedom of worship. Religious freedom includes the right to preach and evangelize, to make religiously informed moral arguments in the public square, and to conduct the affairs of one’s religious community without undue interference from the state. If religious freedom only involves the freedom to worship, then, as noted above, there is “religious freedom” in Saudi Arabia, where Bibles and evangelism are forbidden but expatriate Filipino laborers can attend Mass in the U.S. embassy compound in Riyadh.

Read the whole thing. The legislative and judicial efforts from the LGBT lobby in this country today usually come hand in hand with demands to exclude (and demonize if necessary) religious viewpoints as if those are not legitimately part of our constitutionally protected religious freedoms. Weigel’s column is a timely expose’ on the Left’s attempt to minimize those freedoms in order to accomplish a wider agenda.

At last! We’ve discovered the secret behind the vast conspiracy to keep facts out of schools about the Founding Fathers and their beliefs in the benefits of faith, freedom and free enterprise: We now have proof that students who lack knowledge about these basic facts are more likely to form left-wing viewpoints!    

 Just kidding. Well, sort of.

“College Makes Students More Liberal, but Not Smarter About Civics,” reports a headline in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The article cited results of a study released this Wednesday by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Among other things, the study explains that someone who graduates from college is more likely to “favor same-sex marriage and favor abortion on demand” than someone who shares similar background characteristics, but who doesn’t graduate from college.

However, gaining “civic knowledge—as opposed to merely graduating from college—increases a person’s beliefs in American ideas and free institutions.” Among other things, a person with greater civic knowledge is more likely to understand the benefits of “free enterprise” and the relevance of the Ten Commandments.

Interestingly—on the very same day of this report—data was also released from the Pew Research Center detailing information on the Millennial generation ( people born after 1980). “In their social and political views, young adults are clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life …” summarized the Pew report.  (Young adults are defined as ages 18-29).

They are also more  accepting of “bigger” government. And “less than half of adults under age 30 say that religion is very important in their lives.”  

These revelations should give us all pause—and make us consider the long-term cost of steeping an entire generation of students in the philosophy that they are nothing more than an accident of nature, that they have no higher destiny than to give into their most basic instincts and that there is nothing special about living in America, nothing costly about the freedom we enjoy.

Too many politicians these days treat their voters like jilted lovers.

During the campaign, they’re more than happy to court them and tell them what they want to hear. But once they’re elected to office and things are cushy and there’s power to be wielded—the average voters find themselves treated like an annoyance, something only to be dealt with when absolutely necessary.

That appears to be the mindset of some liberal politicians in New Hampshire.

After hearing a loud outcry from voters who didn’t want a politicized bullying bill to be used as a tool to promote homosexuality to public school children, the legislators changed the wording in the bill. Thankfully, there is no longer a mandate in the bill forcing every single public school in New Hampshire to teach about things like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

But now the liberals who changed their vote are actually complaining that they were “bullied” into it by voters.

“In a telephone interview Friday, Rep. Burke cried as she describe feeling ‘intimidated’ into believing opponents would defeat the anti-bullying bill if she didn’t vote to remove the controversial language,” reported the New Hampshire Union Leader in the Sunday, Feb. 14 edition (not available online).

“I think we’re being bullied by a small group,” said Rep. Charles Yeaton, D-Epsom, who voted against changing the wording, told the paper.

Wait a minute. Being “bullied” is now defined as having to listen to what your voters think ? Isn’t the whole idea of elections to keep representatives accountable to the people who put them in office?  I guess we can now expect to see “elected official” added to the long and growing list of specially protected classes

This pitiful response also brings to mind what we’ve heard at the national level—when certain Democratic leaders actually accused the Tea Parties of being Nazis and militias and indicated that they needed police protection against them.

 Anything—to avoid the voters.