SICK: Bill Cosby Announces Townhalls to Educate Young Girls on Sex Abuse

/0 Comments/in , /by

Bill Cosby will hold a series of town halls to educate young people on sexual assault, his publicists said.

Andrew Wyatt and Ebonee Benson were on “Good Morning Alabama” Wednesday and said Cosby “wants to get back to work” and is planning town halls that could start as early as next month.

“This issue can affect any young person, especially young athletes of today,” Wyatt said. “And they need to know what they’re facing — when they’re hanging out and partying, when they’re doing certain things they shouldn’t be doing.”

The announcement comes less than a week after Cosby’s high-profile trial on charges of aggravated indecent assault ended in a mistrial. The jury was unable to come to a unanimous decision. . .

Cosby, 79, has been accused of sexual assault or misconduct by at least 50 women [and has settled many civil suits alleging his sexual abuse]. (Read more from “SICK: Bill Cosby Announces Townhalls to Educate Young Girls on Sex Abuse” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Suppressing Puberty to ‘Treat’ Gender Dysphoria. Really?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Who’s for pumping confused kids full of hormones to suppress the onset of their puberty? It’s a common “therapy” given to boys who think they are girls and vice versa.

According to the must-read new paper “Growing Pains: Problems with Puberty Suppression in Treating Gender Dysphoria” by Paul W. Hruz, Lawrence S. Mayer, and Paul R. McHugh in The New Atlantis, puberty suppression “advocates argue that it represents a prudent and ‘fully reversible’ way to give young people with gender dysphoria and their families time to sort out the difficult issues surrounding gender identity.”

Gender dysphoria is the learned name for the mental malady of men thinking they’re women and vice versa.

The Problems With Suppressing Puberty

The problem, as Hruz and the others outline, it is that drugging kids up is a “radical and experimental” procedure “based more on subjective judgments and speculation than on rigorous empirical studies.” The so-called treatment is “being applied in an uncontrolled and unsystematic manner” and is endangering kids.

Worse is that “the claim that puberty-blocking treatments are ‘fully reversible’ is not supported by scientific evidence, and possible side effects include abnormal bone and muscle development, neurological problems, and infertility.”

And worst, “These treatments may make it more likely that patients whose cross-gender identification would not have persisted past childhood will continue to identify as the opposite sex into adulthood.”

Given the faddish and hip nature of transgenderism, where experimentation is increasing, this is no small worry.

As the authors rightly point out, “Children are not fully capable of understanding what it means to be a man or a woman. Most children with gender identity problems eventually come to accept the gender associated with their sex and stop identifying as the opposite sex.” Drugging confused kids or guiding them with “gender-affirming” words transforms what is often a temporary infatuation into a lifelong affliction.

What LGBT Advocates Say

Now some medical groups, such as the Endocrine Society and World Professional Association for Transgender Health, advocate giving kids who are confused about their biology chemicals to slow the onset of puberty. They do this because, they claim, “gender dysphoria ‘rarely desists after the onset of pubertal development’” and because, they claim, “suppression causes no irreversible or harmful changes in physical development and puberty resumes readily if hormonal suppression is stopped.”

Slowing puberty “gives adolescents more time to explore their gender nonconformity” and — and this a big and — the treatment “may facilitate transition [to living as the opposite sex] by preventing the development of sex characteristics that are difficult or impossible to reverse if adolescents continue on to pursue sex reassignment” (brackets original).

In other words, if a boy imagines he is a girl, stopping his testes (and so on) from developing makes it easier for him to pretend he is a girl. That he will ever become a girl (or woman) is, of course, impossible. Stopping a girl who thinks she’s a boy from developing her breasts makes it easier for her to pretend to be a boy, but that she will ever become a boy (or man) is also impossible.

This new “treatment” is also advocated by the “LGBT advocacy group” the Human Rights Campaign, who have partnered with the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians. They have put out a guide which says “to prevent the consequences of going through a puberty that doesn’t match a transgender child’s identity, healthcare providers may use fully reversible medications that put puberty on hold.”

When “Treatment” Can Actually Cause the Malady

But, say Hruz and the others,

Whether puberty suppression is safe and effective when used for gender dysphoria remains unclear and unsupported by rigorous scientific evidence. … In the case of gender dysphoria, however, we simply do not know what causes a child to identify as the opposite sex, so medical interventions, like puberty suppression, cannot directly address it.

According to the industry standard Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, anywhere from 70% to 97.8% of boys and 50% to 88% of girls snap out of their gender dysphoria. So there seems little justification for chemical intervention.

Even worse, as Hruz et al. say, “The interventions could, in some cases, be harmful, if they lead children whose gender dysphoria may have resolved in adolescence to instead persist in a dysphoric condition.”

In other words, the treatment can cause the very malady it’s said to be curing.

Hormonal Treatments are Not the Answer

The claim that suppressing puberty in patients with gender dysphoria is “fully reversible” is also thin on evidence. “Given how little we understand about gender identity and how it is formed and consolidated, we should be cautious about interfering with the normal process of sexual maturation.”

And there “have been no controlled clinical trials comparing the outcomes of puberty suppression to the outcomes of alternative therapeutic approaches.” Plus, there is evidence from trials in animals that puberty suppression causes direct harm in neurological development.

We frequently hear from neuroscientists that the adolescent brain is too immature to make reliably rational decisions, but we are supposed to expect emotionally troubled adolescents to make decisions about their gender identities and about serious medical treatments at the age of 12 or younger. And we are supposed to expect parents and physicians to evaluate the risks and benefits of puberty suppression, despite the state of ignorance in the scientific community about the nature of gender identity.

It is obvious some kind of treatment is necessary for children suffering from gender dysphoria. “But as scientists struggle to better understand what gender dysphoria is and what causes it,” the authors argue, “it would not seem prudent to embrace hormonal treatments and sex reassignment as the foremost therapeutic tools for treating this condition.” (For more from the author of “Suppressing Puberty to ‘Treat’ Gender Dysphoria. Really?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Circuit Court Win for Religious Freedom on Gay Marriage

/0 Comments/in , /by

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously on Thursday that a Mississippi law that protects religious liberty and the rights of conscience in light of the redefinition of marriage may go into effect.

In the decision, the circuit court overruled a previous judgment from a district court judge who had declared the Mississippi law unconstitutional for violating the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

But as the circuit court pointed out, the challengers to Mississippi’s law lack standing because they “have not clearly shown injury-in-fact.” In other words, they did not show how the Mississippi law protecting liberty for people who hold to the pre-Obergefell v. Hodges definition of marriage harmed them.

The court explained that the “failure” of the “plaintiffs to assert anything more than a general stigmatic injury dooms their claim.”

While the ruling focused on the lack of standing of the plaintiffs, there are plenty of reasons to rule in favor of the constitutionality of laws like Mississippi’s on the merits.

As Sherif Girgis and I explain in our new book, “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,” there is nothing scandalous about protections for particular views that are at odds with those on which the government acts.

When the government takes Americans to war, exceptions cover pacifists. When the government guarantees abortion, exceptions cover pro-lifers. These exemptions don’t amount to establishments of any religion, and neither do laws protecting dissenters after Obergefell.

Indeed, as law professor Richard Epstein explains, the Establishment Clause—meant to “knock down state coercion for religion”—can’t be used to invalidate “a statute whose whole purpose was to insulate private parties from any form of coercion.”

So, what does the Mississippi law do? As previously explained at The Daily Signal:

Religious organizations, like churches, cannot be forced to use their facilities to celebrate or solemnize weddings that violate their beliefs.

Religious convents, universities, and social service organizations can continue to maintain personnel and housing policies that reflect their beliefs.

Religious adoption agencies can continue to operate by their conviction that every child they serve deserves to be placed with a married mom and dad.

Bakers, photographers, florists, and similar wedding-specific vendors cannot be forced to use their talents to celebrate same-sex weddings if they cannot do so in good conscience.

State employees cannot be fired for expressing their beliefs about marriage outside the office, and individual state clerks can opt out of issuing marriage licenses so long as no valid marriage license is delayed or impeded.

Counselors and surgeons cannot be required to participate in gender identity transitioning or sex-reassignment surgeries against their faith and convictions, while guaranteeing that no one is denied emergency care or visitation rights.

Private businesses and schools, not bureaucrats, get to set their own bathroom, shower, and locker room policies.

This is a reasonable bill. It protects the consciences of people who hold to the historic definition of marriage in the aftermath of the Supreme Court redefining marriage, and it does so while avoiding the awful outcomes that critics fear. The bill provides that the government cannot punish, fine, or coerce specific people and organizations, in specific contexts. It doesn’t harm anyone.

Other states should follow Mississippi’s lead in protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience after the redefinition of marriage. So, too, should Congress pass protections at the federal level.

Longstanding Precedent on Abortion

There is great precedent for such protections on the abortion issue, as Girgis and I explain in “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination.”

In 1973, just months after Roe v. Wade was handed down, Congress passed the Church Amendment, named for Sen. Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho.

While Roe shielded the choice to have an abortion, the Church Amendment protected doctors’ and nurses’ choices not to perform one. It provided that health care organizations receiving federal funds could not force their doctors or nurses to perform or assist abortions.

Some 20 years later, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Coats–Snowe Amendment. It prohibits the government from discriminating against medical students who refuse to perform abortions and medical residency programs that leave out abortion training.

And in 2004, Congress passed the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, which keeps the government from discriminating against health care institutions that don’t offer abortions.

Since 1973, then, U.S. policy has protected a right to choose an abortion right alongside an individual and institutional right to choose against facilitating one.

Our law should now do the same on marriage. It needn’t and shouldn’t penalize private associations for their beliefs on this issue. Doing so would make no appreciable difference to the ability of same-sex couples to receive the goods and services they seek, but it would undermine conscience rights for some.

So lawmakers can and should grant a categorical accommodation.

Current Legislation

A proposed federal law would do that. Much like the Church, Coats-Snowe, and Hyde-Weldon amendments, the First Amendment Defense Act would protect the freedoms of citizens and organizations who hold a belief at odds with one enshrined by courts.

Protecting pro-life consciences did not violate the Constitution—by establishing a religion or engaging in viewpoint discrimination or otherwise. Nor do laws protecting pacifists. Their only aim is peaceful coexistence in the face of disagreement.

The same goes for the First Amendment Defense Act. It would enact a bright-line rule to keep government from penalizing someone just for acting on her belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife. It would protect people who hold that belief for religious or secular reasons, and it would shield organizations from losing nonprofit tax status, licensing, or accreditation for operating by these beliefs.

But even the First Amendment Defense Act’s categorical protections reflect a careful balance. They protect individuals, nonprofit charities, and privately held businesses, but not publicly traded corporations, or federal employees or contractors in the course of their work.

The First Amendment Defense Act makes clear that it does not relieve the federal government of its duty to provide services, medical care, or benefits to all who qualify. It must simply respect conscience in the course of doing so.

Mississippi has shown the way forward on this issue at the state level. And on Thursday, the 5th Circuit allowed that law to go into effect.

Other states should offer similar protections at the state level, and Congress should do the same at the federal level.

Protecting a New Minority

America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing.

During this time, it is critical to protect the right to dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

Good public policy is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to protect cherished American values. Good policy would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement and protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice. (For more from the author of “Circuit Court Win for Religious Freedom on Gay Marriage” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mega Actor Makes ‘Joke’ Towards Trump That Sounds More Like a Threat

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Patrick Smith. In a year that he would like to forget, which included his acrimonious divorce to Amber Heard, Johnny Depp appeared at a Q&A at the new Cinemageddon stage at Glastonbury.

Introducing his 2004 film The Libertine, about a 17th-century poet who notoriously drank himself to an early death, the 54-year-old chose to discuss American politics.

“I think [Donald] Trump needs help,” he said. “There are a lot of dark places he could go.”

He added: “I’m not insinuating anything – by the way this will be in the press and it will be horrible – but when was the last time an actor assassinated a president?”

Responding to loud cheers, Depp said: “Don’t worry, I’m not an actor, I lie for a living.” (Read more from “Mega Actor Makes ‘Joke’ Towards Trump That Sounds More Like a Threat” HERE)

_______________________________________

Elise Jordan Says Defending Trump ‘Like Hugging a Suicide Bomber’

By Aidan McLaughlin. Elise Jordan warned Republicans against defending a fact-challenged President Donald Trump, comparing doing so to “hugging a suicide bomber” on MSNBC Thursday.

The comments were in response to Trump’s latest tweets undermining his previous statement hinting that he may have recorded tapes of his conversations with former FBI director James Comey . . .

MSNBC’s Craig Melvin asked Jordan about the president’s tweets, noting “it would seem as if the president may have been lying all along about the existence of these tapes.”

“No, he’s just wasting — he wasted the country’s collective time speculating over whether these tapes existed or not,” Jordan said. “It’s a sad day when you cannot depend on the president’s word.”

Jordan — a Bush White House aide turned MSNBC analyst and TIME contributor — then doled out some advice for Republican lawmakers: “My advice would just be to Republicans who do cozy up to him — it’s like hugging a suicide bomber.” (Read more from “Elise Jordan Says Defending Trump ‘Like Hugging a Suicide Bomber'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Open Marriages Happier? Not So Fast, Family Research Expert Says

/0 Comments/in , /by

Anecdotal praise of open relationships can be found all over the internet. The New York Times’ May feature is the most prominent example. The headline wonders, “Is an Open Marriage a Happier Marriage?”

Meanwhile, LGBT advocates are celebrating the first polyamorous “family” to be legally recognized in Colombia this month.

But are these kinds of relationships really as healthy as recent reports suggest?

Just as Happy?

Studies traditionally report that people in open marriages and other forms of polyamory are less happy than monogamous couples. A March study suggests that’s because society is biased against them. Researchers at SAGE Journals found that “CNM [consensual non-monogamous] relationships generally have equally positive relational outcomes as monogamous relationships.”

But Dr. Brad Wilcox said there is a lack of good evidence on the actual appeal of open marriages. For instance, the Times piece on open marriages was “data free.” That was “striking,” he told The Stream. Wilcox is the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.

Studies favoring polyamory “are based on non-representative samples,” he said. “It’s not really good science.” Even the SAGE study’s authors admit their survey respondents were not chosen randomly. They may have been biased toward positive reporting.

“My guess is that these marriages are really unstable,” Wilcox said. The complexity that comes along with an open marriage might be harder in practice than in theory, he added.

Wilcox noted that most Americans still favor the idea of fidelity. And people who have had just one partner in the last year and not several tend to be happier, he said. He called those pushing for polyamory and open marriages “a small minority.”

Redefining Morality

Why is that minority so vocal? Perhaps it has to do with Americans’ shifting view of morality.

LifeWay Research released a telling study last month. It revealed that 81 percent of Americans worry about “declining moral behavior.” But people disagree about the meaning of “moral.” Nearly 50 percent said that right and wrong are absolutes. But 20 percent said something is “wrong” only if it hurts someone.

According to the study, “More than 6 in 10 of those older than 45 say right and wrong do not change. For those 35 and younger, fewer than 4 in 10 make that claim.” The age gap between the two is not surprising. Another recent study revealed that only 4 percent of millennials hold a “biblical worldview.”

Since many people don’t view moral truths as absolute, the growing acceptance of polyamory makes sense. If it doesn’t hurt anybody, why not? “How is love bad?” asks one husband who lives with his wife, daughter, and his wife’s boyfriend.

True Happiness Requires Holiness

The Times portrays its “Open Marriage” interview subjects with sophistication. The author is impressed by the “boldness” of their unconventional ways. But really, there’s nothing new or bold about seeking sensual pleasure.

In Galatians, Paul refers to sinful desires as “the flesh.” He warns Christians to “not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh.” (Galatians 5:13) A few verses later, he writes:

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. (Galatians 5:16-17)

Christians are taught to reject fleshly desires in favor of something greater. We believe true joy is found in holiness. And we become holy by accepting God’s salvation through Jesus Chirst. In that salvation, there is freedom from the sin that enslaves all of us.

Anything in marriage beyond fidelity between one man and one woman is sin. And so participating in anything else is to resubmit to sin’s bondage. As D.C. McAllister wrote for The Federalist in 2015, critiquing a polyamorist columnist:

Burrows was so quick to throw off the chains of religion and social norms that she fails to see that she has entered a new kind of bondage: she is bound by the chains of her sexual desires. Little does she know that those butterflies that make her feel so alive will soon become dragons that burn off her soul and reduce her to an empty shell of animalistic appetites. Burrows fails to see that liberty — real liberty — is found in self-government and self-control.

The idea of open marriage and poly-romance isn’t new. Neither is defining happiness and freedom by the unbridled pursuit of sensual pleasure. But there is a recent wave of exploration when it comes to the idea of polyamory as a legitimate, ethical relationship (and parenting) style — even if led by a “small minority.” Founded on empty desires, false morality and little research, it’s a wave that deserves push-back. (For more from the author of “Open Marriages Happier? Not So Fast, Family Research Expert Says” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Man Accused of Moving Cocaine Through Children’s Day Care

/0 Comments/in , /by

Children played and slept surrounded by pounds of cocaine at a Los Angeles day care center that a man used as a drug trafficking hub, authorities said . . .

Felipe Talamante is accused of trafficking dozens of pounds of cocaine out of the house that also functioned as an unlicensed day care center for children of all ages.

Police had previously arrested Talamante at the same home two years ago — also for allegedly possessing 20 kilograms of cocaine, according to the city attorney’s office. But that case was not prosecuted, Feuer said. Drug enforcement agents did not return messages asking why. (Read more from “Man Accused of Moving Cocaine Through Children’s Day Care” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CNN Program Lauds Rep Who Refused Abortion

/0 Comments/in , /by

Washington Republican Rep. Jaime Beutler explained why she refused to abort her baby in a recent CNN piece on “Bada** Women of Washington.”

Beutler discovered she was pregnant with her first child shortly after her first reelection in 2012. However, the happy news soon turned devastating when doctors diagnosed her unborn child with Potter Syndrome, a condition where the unborn baby fails to develop kidneys. Additionally, the fetus fails to properly develop lungs. Doctors told her the condition is 100 percent fatal.

“They took us into a back room and just said, ‘There’s nothing that can be done. Your baby’s gonna die,’” Beutler told CNN. The physician recommended an abortion due to the fatal nature of the condition.

“Being able to hear the heartbeat … we had this gut feeling of there has to be something — I mean, a doctor may say it, but she’s moving. That’s pretty convincing. We know she’s still alive,” said her husband, Dan Beutler . . .

“But what she went through to have — and save — her baby is truly bada**, a lesson in courage from a woman who wouldn’t take no for an answer,” wrote CNN’s Dana Loch. Finally, a doctor at Johns Hopkins University agreed to administer the treatment. (Read more from “CNN Program Lauds Rep Who Refused Abortion” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Church Will Never Embrace Homosexual Practice

/0 Comments/in , /by

There’s a bizarre argument which basically goes like this. “Look at how many churches are embracing homosexual practice. This proves we’re getting closer to the truth.” The logic behind this argument is as wrongheaded as it is unbiblical. All it really proves is that more and more churches are apostasizing.

‘Many False Prophets Will Arise’

To argue that acceptance of homosexuality by churches is proof of spiritual growth is like arguing that acceptance of obesity by doctors is proof of medical progress. The reverse is actually true.

The Bible often warns us against compromise and apostasy, both moral and creedal. In every generation, there are heretics who depart from the faith. Should we celebrate every heretical doctrine and practice as proof of our spiritual maturity?

Jesus warned His disciples, saying “See that no one leads you astray” (Matt. 24:4). He also said, “And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:11-13).

What is to be celebrated is not apostasy but faithfulness. Not deception, but steadfastness. Not moral laxity, but moral firmness. The words of Jesus may have more specific application to certain times in history. But there is certainly an application to our day, in which “lawlessness” has greatly increased.

4 Reasons Why the Church Will Never Embrace Homosexual Practice

Last month, the gay activist organization Faith in America announced its plans to ask the Southern Baptist Convention to remove homosexual practice “from the sin list.”

“Ultimately,” they said, “we at FIA believe LGBT people should be removed from the sin list. We know interpretations and new revelations come to light. We believe the Church will one day stop diminishing the lives of those who are LGBT and we strive to help this come to pass. We are optimistic people and see the glass 75% full!”

They are encouraged by what they have seen in recent years, as more and more churches in America and Europe drop homosexual practice “from the sin list.” Soon enough, they believe, the whole Church will follow suit. To paraphrase (in my words, not theirs!), “We’re encouraged by the increasing apostasy we see in the Church. We’re expectant that one day, the whole Church will be completely apostate.”

The facts are as follows.

First, as I’ve stated repeatedly:

No new textual, archeological, sociological, anthropological, or philological discoveries have been made in the last fifty years that would cause us to read any of these biblical texts differently. Put another way, it is not that we have gained some new insights into what the biblical text means based on the study of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Instead, people’s interaction with the LGBT community has caused them to understand the biblical text differently.

The truth hasn’t changed. Instead, some professing Christians have departed from God’s unchanging truth. This is because of personal relationships and cultural decline.

Second, most church groups that have removed homosexual practice from the sin list are in numerical and spiritual decline. In contrast, most church groups that are holding to biblical truth, especially overseas, are growing numerically and spiritually.

Third, the embrace of homosexual practice cannot be separated from the larger cultural embrace of the sexual revolution. This includes an increase in extra-marital sex, out of wedlock births, pornography, and divorce, along with all kinds of sexual perversions. That’s why the same society that celebrates same-sex “marriage” is increasingly celebrating polyamory, polygamy, and consensual adult incest. (I’ve documented this in many articles and several books. See, conveniently, the relevant chapters here.)

This points to spiritual and moral regress, not progress.

Fourth, the idea that the whole Church will one day embrace homosexual practice is as certain not to happen as the idea that the whole Church will one day deny Jesus. Forget about not holding your breath. Don’t even think about holding your breath.

Tragic Self-Deception

It’s certainly possible that in some locations, parts of the Church will fall away, and this will be marked by numerous spiritual compromises. But the notion that the whole Church will fall away is completely self-contradictory. If there is a true Church, it has been established by Jesus Himself. And it was He who said that He would build His church and that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

It is not only theologically ignorant to imagine that the Church worldwide will one day embrace homosexual practice. It is also missiologically ignorant. Wherever the Church is growing worldwide, it is growing with a conservative message and morality.

I truly believe that the leaders of groups like Faith in America mean well. They believe they are doing God’s work. That makes their self-deception all the more tragic. (For more from the author of “The Church Will Never Embrace Homosexual Practice” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Canadians Could Be Jailed or Fined for Using Incorrect Gender Pronouns

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.

Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts “gender identity” and “gender expression” into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code by a vote of 67-11, according to LifeSiteNews. The bill now only needs royal assent from the governor general.

“Great news,” announced Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister. “Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove.”

“Proud that Bill C-16 has passed in the Senate,” said Jody Wilson-Raybould, the country’s attorney general and minister of justice. “All Canadians should feel #FreeToBeMe.”

“[There’s an argument] that transgender identity is too subjective a concept to be enshrined in law because it is defined as an individual’s deeply felt internal experience of gender,” said Grant Mitchell, a conservative senator, in November 2016. “Yet we, of course, accept outright that no one can discriminate on the basis of religion, and that too is clearly a very deeply subjective and personal feeling.” (Read more from “Canadians Could Be Jailed or Fined for Using Incorrect Gender Pronouns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Religious Adoption Agencies Can Reject LGBT Parents in Texas

/2 Comments/in , /by

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill allowing faith-based foster care and adoption agencies to deny LGBT parents Thursday.

Abbott signed HB 3859 into law, effectively protecting faith-based agencies from being sued for choosing not to place children with gay, lesbian, transgender or other LGBT couples.

Democrats argue the bill is redundant because the law already protects the rights of faith-based agencies to make child placement decisions based on an agency’s religion. The new law, however, further ensures that the state cannot sue agencies for denying potential parents based on religious criteria.

State Rep. James Frank, author of the bill, said it would not only defend the rights of religious agencies, but also help solve the housing crisis that plagues the foster and adoption systems.

“This is a defensive bill. It allows everyone to participate,” said Frank. “It requires [Child Protective Services] to maintain a diverse network of homes and provides reasonable accommodations to those who are helping solve our foster care capacity crisis.” (Read more from “Religious Adoption Agencies Can Reject LGBT Parents in Texas” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.