- Visit CWA
- Visit CWPAC
Take Legislative Action
- Elected Officials
- Current Legislation
- Elections
- Media Contacts
News and Information:
- LAC News
- Alerts Archive
- Talking Points
Project 535
Get Involved
Communicate with Congress
Concerned Women Blog
Let’s Be Frank, Mr. Frank: ENDA Should Be Ended
By Lindsey Douthit
September 29, 2009
Print this


For now it seems that all eyes are focused on the efforts by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) to repeal DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), which is something that Concerned Women for America (CWA) is tracking.  It is interesting to note, however, that openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) refuses to support Nadler’s efforts, instead maintaining that the most effective way to advance the homosexual agenda is through legislation such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).


ENDA is touted by Congressman Frank and the homosexual lobby as a way to stop discrimination in the workplace based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”  The same legislation was introduced in last year’s Congress, but “gender identity” was removed from the bill.  Consequently, Mr. Frank is taking up the issue again and is demanding that “gender identity” be included this time.


So let’s get this straight (no pun intended): the homosexual lobby declares that there is a crisis in the United States of discrimination against “gays,” lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, and those who dress or act contrary to their biological gender, and to solve this rampant problem (although the data to prove this crisis is nowhere to be seen) Congress should pass yet another law to give them special treatment?


The implications of ENDA are serious, especially for individuals of faith.  For instance, if a Christian businessman declined to hire a blatant homosexual for a secretarial position, the homosexual would have the ability to sue the businessmen for alleged employment discrimination.  Even worse, the bill attacks situations based on “actual” or “perceived sexual orientation.”  In other words, if a homosexual does not get a job offer, he or she could turn around and sue the employer for “perceiving” that he or she was a homosexual.  ENDA goes so far as to police employers’ thoughts about why they would not choose a candidate for a job.


 ENDA currently includes exemptions for businesses with 15 employees or fewer, as well as a “religious organization exemption,” but down the road that could easily change.  The legislation opens doors for employers who disagree with homosexuality, or who do not want individuals of “alternative” lifestyles to be around their clients (think day cares, public schools, and other positions which would deal with children), to be slapped with lawsuits and legal fees.


On September 23, 2009, the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing to discuss ENDA.  It was essentially three hours of pro-ENDA members of Congress and members of the lesbian, “gay,” bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community proclaiming the legislation to be the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Only one individual, Craig Parshall from the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), testified against the legislation.


The following are some of the more memorable moments from the ENDA hearing:


·         Representative Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): The transgender community “deserves credit for introducing themselves” to the world and “there’s nothing to be afraid of” (translation:  people who disagree with homosexuality or transgendered people are mean).


·         Stuart Ishimaru, Acting Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for the Obama Administration: “The Administration strongly supports this bill to counteract discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. … Protecting citizens shouldn’t be left solely to the states.”  (In other words, states don’t always follow Mr. Obama, and therefore, he must ride to the rescue of the sexually deviant.)


·         When asked about the concept of “perceived sexual orientation” and why it was in the legislation, Mr. Ishimaru spoke of 9/11 and how some individuals were “perceived” to be Muslim and faced “discrimination” (apparently, the Obama Administration believes that “perceiving” a person to be a member of a group posing national security threats to the U.S. is the same thing as “perceiving” a person to be gender-confused or engaging in risky sexual behaviors).


·         Representative Jared Polis (D-Colorado):  He claimed that there “won’t be issues” with things like employers having to incur major costs to change bathrooms to suit transgendered people, etc., and it is a “moral issue” to pass this legislation.  He also declared that discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered individuals is a “byproduct of old and dying norms” and is similar to the “anti-Semitism faced by Jews”.  (Translation: I’m not going to tell you exactly how employers won’t face extra costs to adjust their workplaces, I’m just going to tell you that if you disagree with ENDA you are immoral and your beliefs are “outdated”).


Perhaps the kicker occurred after Craig Parshall from NRB, who, again, was the only speaker to bring up concerns about the legislation, spoke about the implications of ENDA on religious Americans who hold Biblical beliefs regarding the immoral nature of homosexuality.  After Mr. Parshall spoke, Representative Phil Hare (D-Illinois) looked visibly annoyed and interjected that, in his mind, God would disagree.  He then managed to perform a Kristi Yamaguchi-style double-axle twist of Scripture, quoting Matthew 25:40, “that which you do for the least of these, you do for me.”  He maintained that disagreeing with alternative sexualities or gender identities was not being “Christian.”  (After I managed to pick my jaw up off the floor, I wondered if he had ever read the parts of the Bible where homosexual acts are explicitly shown to be sinful, or considered the notion that Christians care enough about their fellow human beings to tell them the truth about their sin and God’s free offer of redemption and freedom from sin).


The main platform of the pro-ENDA speakers was this: it is “inhumane” to object to individuals’ decisions to give themselves over to unnatural sexual, and people who oppose ENDA are backwards and biased.


The ENDA hearing should serve as a wake-up call to Christians that they must continue to fight for religious liberty.  Legislation such as ENDA serves to normalize, and even glorify, in the guise of “progressive popular culture,” lifestyles that Biblical doctrine clearly teaches are wrong.  Legislation like ENDA makes people think they can never be free from their sexual and other sins when in fact, Jesus Christ can save every person from all his sins, even homosexuality.      


Don’t be fooled — the radical implications of ENDA are as noticeable as the glossy wigs and deep voices of the hurting and desperate transgendered female activists at the hearing who so desperately need the life-changing Gospel message offering them freedom from sin.



Send this article to a friend:

Top of Page




Concerned Women for America
Legislative Action Committee
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
    ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....