Last week, voters in Anchorage, Alaska, rejected a measure, known as Proposition 5, aimed at granting special protection to lesbians, “gays,” bisexuals and trangenders (LGBT). The measure lost by an overwhelming margin: 58-41 percent.
The margin is stark, especially because of the money disparity. Protect Anchorage reported the margin was nearly four to one.
Alaska is one of a dozen states that have not caved to the pressure of pro-homosexuality activist groups, liberal politicians, and the “mainstream” media to equate sexual behavior with race, granting it special protection under the law.
These so-called protections do nothing more than promote the acceptance of homosexuality and other sexually deviant behaviors. There is no evidence that homosexuals are disproportionately discriminated against in Alaska because it does not have this law.
But if homosexual groups continue to gain ground in equating homosexual behavior with race, they will have gone a long way toward making the courts impose homosexual “marriage” on every state.
There are many “unintended” consequences to these laws. The most troubling is the inevitable clash between “homosexual rights” and our First Amendment guaranteed religious freedoms. Over and over we see our constitutional rights trampled in order to protect the new found “homosexual rights” and “diversity”.
President Obama’s own Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner, Chai Feldblum, a lesbian, has said time and again that she is “having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win” over homosexual rights.
Christian businesses and charities are being forced to get out of certain states, like the Catholic adoption agencies have had to do in places like Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Churches are being forced to allow the use of their facilities for homosexual weddings or lose their tax-exempt statuses, such as the case of the Methodist Church’s pavilion in New Jersey.
Another danger is what happens in schools as the result of this type of legislation. Homosexual groups quickly move in to “educate” children on the LGBT struggles and “tolerance.” This allows them to promote homosexual behavior not only as acceptable, but as good and desirable. We have seen how they have asked children, “How do you know you are not homosexual if you have not tried it?”
These troubles will beget more troubles. Currently there are cases making the arguments that polygamists are being discriminated against in the same way as LGBT groups. What about pedophiles, who now go by their version of GLBT: MAP, or Minor Attracted Persons? Are they being discriminated against?
When you protect “sexual orientation,” that term can be defined in any number of ways at different points in time. Sure, they usually limit it today to heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, but the APA once identified about 22 different types of sexual preferences. The reason homosexual activists just stick with those three today is because that is all they believe society will approve. If you notice, they sometimes limit the reach of “trangenders rights” in many ways. But they will continue the fight for “sexual liberation” when we are “ready.”
Think about it, they are gaining much momentum in re-defining the word “marriage.” Nobody would have thought of that a few years back. Do you think it would be that difficult to redefine “sexual orientation?”
Cities and states are wise to reject such broad redefinition in law, the negative effects of which are limitless.
Social science has proven time and again that the traditional family structure is the best environment for children to develop as productive citizens, and the state has a compelling interest in protecting that structure and indeed promoting it, due to its innumerable benefits. We commend the citizens of Anchorage for taking a bold stand.