Ed Vitagliano
AFA Journal news editor
March 2009 – Christians had better start praying that President Barack Obama is unable to keep his word when it comes to his campaign promises.
Over the course of his political career, but especially since he has been campaigning for the opportunity to call the White House home, Obama has made this fact very clear: He is in favor of virtually the entire gamut of items on the gay activist wish list.
Now that he is firmly ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we are about to witness the full power of the federal government being thrown behind the homosexual movement. Christians who already have been fighting a defensive action against the gay juggernaut should be preparing themselves to be overrun.
▶ ‘Rainbow world’
In terms of Obama’s worldview there can be little doubt that he is overwhelmingly supportive of the homosexual “civil rights” movement. His clear statements in favor of that movement indicate that the new president has a broad vision of a rainbow world in which there is no moral distinction between gay or straight.
The day after his inauguration, the Obama White House posted on its Web site (www.whitehouse.gov) what it called “The Agenda,” which included a section addressed to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community.
“Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us,” Obama is quoted as saying. “But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”
So those who hold to a Christian view of the world are exploitative? Their motivation is to divide the nation? Never before has an American president said such things so boldly. “Change Has Come to America,” the Web site said in big, bold letters. And how!
Homosexual lobby groups such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest homosexual group, are giddy with anticipation.
On Inauguration Day HRC president Joe Solmonese said: “Today’s inauguration represents a paradigm shift. The pendulum has swung away from the anti-gay forces and toward a new president and vice president who acknowledge our equality. … Our community and many others are looking at a new day of welcome and great promise.”
Solmonese has the same sense of optimism regarding the new Congress. In a press release in early January, he said, “With increased ranks of pro-equality lawmakers in both the House and Senate, new possibilities are open to us.”
With a Democratic president ready to sign just about anything a Democratically-controlled Congress sends to his desk, what can we expect to see?
▶ Hate crimes
As HRC describes it, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act/Matthew Shepard Act “gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence … where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.”
The new Obama White House promises on its Web site that it “will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation” and “expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act.”
Where such laws have been passed around the world, however, the reach has often been extended to incorporate “hate speech.” Christians are concerned that religious speech – such as sermons declaring homosexuality to be a sin – would soon come under scrutiny.
▶ ENDA
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a proposed federal law which would have the effect, according to HRC, of “making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote employees simply based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The Obama White House said it “supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.”
HRC claims that ENDA does not apply to religious organizations, but the 2007 version of the law only provided a religious exemption for religious positions that were involved in actual teaching or proclamation of doctrine.
Such a limited exemption, some pro-family legal experts argue, would mean that a Christian school that was hiring a secretary, janitor or football coach would not be allowed to reject a homosexual who applied for the slot.
Christian concerns about ENDA are not paranoia. As with the case of hate crime laws, when ENDA-style measures have been passed globally, religious institutions quickly come under pressure.
For example, the Canadian ministry Christian Horizons, which works with the disabled in 180 group homes run on Christian principles, was fined $23,000 in 2008 for terminating a female employee who was actively engaged in a homosexual relationship. All employees had signed an agreement prior to being hired in which they promised to refrain from all immorality, including homosexual conduct.
That wasn’t good enough, declared the human rights tribunal which heard the case brought by the fired lesbian. The tribunal not only issued the fine, it instructed the ministry to remove the immorality clause from the employee agreement and ordered the ministry to start forcing its managers to undergo sensitivity training to accept homosexuality.
▶ Gays in the military
The current policy regarding homosexuals in the military will probably be discarded, although just when this might occur is not yet clear.
Military law forbids homosexuals from serving in the armed forces, but during the Clinton administration an additional layer was added – “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That policy constrains the military from asking about sexual orientation but allows the dismissal of a homosexual whose sexual orientation – for any reason – becomes public.
The White House Web site says: “President Obama agrees … that we need to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. … Discrimination should be prohibited. …”
Opponents of the repeal argue that the step would prove disastrous to the military. According to one poll, 58% of those currently in the military said they opposed overturning the ban – and 24% said they would either leave the military or consider such a move if homosexuals were allowed in.
▶ Gay adoption
During his 1996 primary election campaign for the Illinois State Senate Obama answered a questionnaire submitted by a homosexual newspaper in Chicago. He said, “I believe in the rights of gays and lesbians to become foster parents, adopt children and have the right to custody of their own children on the same basis as heterosexuals.”
His support of homosexual adoption in recent years has not changed. In a letter to a gay rights group in Massachusetts last summer, Obama said, “[W]e have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that’s why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws.”
Pro-family groups, however, have argued that studies demonstrate that a child does best when raised by both biological parents, and that children benefit from having both a male and female role model in the home.
▶ Same-sex marriage
The one area where pro-family groups might catch a break is on the issue of same-sex marriage. During both the primary and general election campaigns Obama said he did not support homosexual marriage.
However, a number of factors make it doubtful whether or not Obama is truly committed to defending traditional marriage. For one thing, during his early political career, Obama said on the 1996 questionnaire: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”
While it is not unusual for politicians to change their views on major issues over time, Obama has demonstrated a deep antipathy toward any serious efforts to protect traditional marriage against homosexual encroachment. The White House Web site states that the president wants to “repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),” which was signed into law in 1996 by then-president Bill Clinton. DOMA defines marriage in all federal matters as being between a man and a woman and declares that no state must be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.
When Obama was a U.S. senator, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 – a measure put forth by defenders of the traditional family that would have strengthened the sentiments expressed by DOMA.
An amendment was considered necessary because there were concerns that DOMA might not survive lawsuits and thus the one man/one woman definition of marriage should be placed in the U.S. Constitution.
Finally, the new administration says on its Web site that Obama wants to “enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”
So there seems to be little reason for Obama not to change his mind again and come out in full support of same-sex marriage. After all, with a nation in economic turmoil and people anxious about their families and livelihoods, very few people probably care about social issues right now.
In any case, with or without same-sex marriage, homosexual activists are about to hit the jackpot. This nation cannot really sustain itself with two warring parties that firmly stand upon two mutually exclusive views of sex, marriage and family.
There’s no doubting in which camp Obama and most Democrats are prepared to stand. 
