Will the Republican Party live up to its platform – part 4

The 2016 Republican Party National Platform states the following:

Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent

The Bill of Rights lists religious liberty, with its rights of conscience, as the first freedom to be protected. Religious freedom in the Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to practice their faith in their everyday lives. As George Washington taught, “religion and morality are indispensable supports” to a free society. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson declared that “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” Ongoing attempts to compel individuals, businesses, and institutions of faith to transgress their beliefs are part of misguided effort to undermine religion and drive it from the public square.

Whereas, the party platform declares marriage between one man and one woman the foundation for a free society, the bill proposed by candidate for Governor Scott Wagner (whom the Pennsylvania State Republican Party endorsed 3 months before the primary election), SB 613, declares that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sexual expression “undermines the foundations of a free democratic state”…”resulting in grave injury to the public health and welfare”…”thereby threatening the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the Commonwealth and its inhabitants”.  In other words, we face the collapse of civilization if men are not allowed to wear dresses in every public place and we don’t celebrate homosexual unions.

Not only is Senator Wagner’s proposed legislation objectionable on a moral basis, it is objectionable on a limited-government basis. What business has the government telling a private business owner who is attempting to operate a family friendly business that he or she must hire transvestites?

Will the Republican Party live up to its platform – part 3

The 2016 Republican Party National Platform states the following:

We are the party of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration sets forth the fundamental precepts of American government: That God bestows certain inalienable rights on every individual, thus producing human equality; that government exists first and foremost to protect those inalienable rights; that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”; and that American government is to operate with the consent of the governed.

Clearly, the attempt to create human-granted rights of sexual perversion which would override  the rights of citizens to exercise their religious beliefs, as exemplified by Senator Wagner’s SB 613 and SB 974 (see other posts on this blog) is neither consistent with the Declaration of Independence nor the 2016 Republican Party National Platform.

How Many Men in Dresses Would You Expect to See in a Wagner Administration?

Given Scott Wagner’s support of transgenderism in the workplace, it is appropriate to ask whether in a Wagner Administration, the citizens of Pennsylvania would be subject to pro-homosexuality and pro-transgenderism propaganda promulgated by a man in a dress. In the present Wolf Administration, the citizens of Pennsylvania are currently subjected to pro-homosexuality and pro-transgenderism propaganda promulgated by a man in a dress, i.e. by Acting Secretary of Health and Physician General for the Commonwealth, “Rachel” Levine, M.D.  If you examine the Twitter feed of Dr. Levine, you will find that it is filled with rainbow flags and homosexual and transgender propaganda. Moreover, Dr. Levine has been involved in conferences at public universities such as Pitt and Penn State which seek to normalize and celebrate homosexuality and transgenderism.

According, to Dr. Levine, tolerating homosexuality and transgenderism is not sufficient. They must be celebrated.

Given Scott Wagner’s sponsorship of Senate Bills 974 & 613, bill which call for pro-homosexual and pro-transgender propaganda, as further explained in my previous post, and his vote to confirm Dr. Levine as Physician General, one may logically ask whether one would expect to find a man in a dress advocating homosexuality and transgenderism in a Wagner Administration? If Wagner’s proposed bill became law it would be illegal to fail to hire a man because he wore a dress to work.

Scott Wagner would normalize behavior which produces a 20 times greater rate of suicide

In the following article, Ryan T. Anderson, senior research fellow of the Heritage Foundation, references studies which show that persons who have undergone sex reassignment surgery suffer a suicide rate 19 to 20 times the normal rate. However, Senator Scott Wagner has proposed legislation which would normalize such behavior (see other posts on this blog).

Sex Reassignment Surgery Doesn’t Work.  Here is the Evidence.


Pennsylvania Family Institute Warns about Senator Wagner’s SB 613

Download a free ebook from Pennsylvania Family Institute warning about the danger posed by the Scott Wagner sponsored bill SB 613 at:

eBook: Tools to combat renewed push for harmful legislation

The ebook describes the bill as follows:

“The result of this law then, is that biological males and females will have the right to access restrooms, showers and locker rooms of the opposite biological sex – in schools, places of employment, and at public accommodations.”

Furthermore, the ebook points out that similar bills in other states have been used to limit freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion, e.g. the prosecution of Jack Philips in Colorado for refusing to create a cake to celebrate a so-called same-sex “wedding” and the prosecution of Barronelle Stutzman in Washington State for refusing to create a floral arrangement to celebrate a so-called same-sex “wedding”

Did you watch the gubernatorial debate on March 7th?

On the evening of March 7, 2018, I watched a gubernatorial debate televised from the Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Senator Scott Wagner lied again about his support of transgenderism, indicating his bill was not a bathroom bill. That is flat out untrue. I have read Senate Bill 974 (2015 Session) and Senate Bill 613 (2017 Session), both of which have Senator Wagner’s name on them as a sponsor, and they both expressly prohibit discrimination in facilities of public accommodation on the basis of sexual identity or sexual expression. As a lawyer who has been reading statutes for over a quarter century (nearly 30 years, if you count my time as a law school student), I can tell you this would be construed as giving a right to use the bathroom of the opposite sex. What’s more, there is a second section in the proposed amendments which expressly gives employees the right to wear clothes of the opposite sex on the job. I can’t see employees changing their clothes just to use the bathroom. Wagner is lying to our face and not expecting us to know any better. Anybody who lines up in support of him before the primary should have some explaining to do. Moreover, Wagner should be asked if he thinks Christians should have a voice in the Republican party.

Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Family Council sees the bill as I do.

Would Scott Wagner fly the rainbow flag?

Scott Wagner has refused to revoke his co-sponsorship of Senate Bill 974 which would amend the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to cover “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression”.  Moreover, Senator Wagner seeks to obfuscate the effect of the proposed amendment. He denies that it would give persons the right to use the bathrooms of the opposite sex. However, the express terms of the amendment bar discrimination according to sexual identity in public accommodation facilities. That language, in plain English, includes public bathrooms, no matter how much Senator Wagner seeks to confuse the voters.

Furthermore, as explained in an ebook published by the Pennsylvania Family Council, similar laws in other states “have been used to limit freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion.” Furthermore, the ebook cites as examples the case of Jack Phillips in Colorado and the case of Baronelle Stutzman in Washington State. Mr. Phillips was prosecuted for failing to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex “wedding”. Ms. Stutzman was prosecuted for failing to create flower arrangements to celebrate a same-sex “wedding”.  The proposed amendment, by prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of the advantages and privileges of public accommodation, would facilitate such prosecutions in Pennsylvania.

In addition, the proposed amendment expressly gives employees the right to wear the clothing of the opposite sex while on the job.

Also, the proposed amendment calls for the creation of councils and agencies to issue publications to “promote good will and minimize or eliminate discrimination because of … sexual orientation, gender identity or expression” and calls for the Commission in cooperation with the Department of Education to recommend a multicultural educational program to promote appreciation of sexual orientation and sexual identity or expression. In other words, the proposed amendment would empower the government to harangue persons who have moral objections to homosexuality and transgenderism and/or transvestism; and no doubt portray persons voicing moral objections to homosexuality, transgenderism, and transvestism as hateful bigots. I see that as state-sanctioned anti-Christian discrimination. Does state-sanctioned normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism mean that Christians will be viewed by the state as enemies of the state?

Our rights are grounded in God

You will recognize the following sentence from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This language acknowledges that the origin of our rights is in our Creator, i.e. our rights are given to us by God.  Also, this language indicates that our rights are unalienable, i.e. our rights cannot be taken from us.  Moreover, the inherent logic contained in this statement is that the only reason our rights cannot be taken from us is that they find their origin in God.  This means that our rights are objective facts, not subjective human opinions. Because our rights are not given to us by men, they cannot be taken from us by men.

If our rights find their origin in God and not merely in the opinions of men, it necessarily follows that we can only know what our rights are through divine revelation, i.e. through scripture (the Bible) or through God’s general revelation, nature. The Declaration acknowledges this in its reference elsewhere to “the laws of nature and nature’s God”.

Accordingly, any action which God expressly prohibits cannot be a right and the Pennsylvania legislature cannot make any such action a right by expressing its opinion on the subject, e.g. homosexual practice.