Friday, February 28, 2014

Types Of Fear Mongering That led To The Veto Of The Arizona Freedom Of Religion Over Homosexuality Bill

This is an example of the type of false attacks on a bill that's only allows people to not to be forced to violate their religion

I think they got this backwards it's going to be gays doing this to religious people
Just For The Record The Bill Never Mentions Anything To Do With Homosexuality Only The Free Practice Of Religon

With Attacks Like This The Fake Conservative Jan Brewer Vetoed The Bill

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

State of Uganda Publicly Outlaws Gay Activity

 President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda significantly strengthened Africa’s antigay movement on Monday, signing into law a bill imposing harsh sentences for homosexual acts, including life imprisonment in some cases, according to government officials.

The move came weeks after Mr. Museveni’s Nigerian counterpart, Goodluck Jonathan, took similar steps in his own country, threatening offenders with 14-year prison terms. The Ugandan law seemed even tougher, threatening life terms on charges including “aggravated homosexuality,” meaning homosexual acts with a minor, a disabled person or someone infected with H.I.V.

Africans “never seek to impose our view on others. If only they could let us alone,” Mr. Museveni said, alluding to Western pressure to reject the bill.


He signed the legislation at his official residence at Entebbe, near the capital, Kampala, in front of government officials, journalists and a team of Ugandan scientists who had said they found no genetic basis for homosexuality — a conclusion that Mr. Museveni cited in support of the new law.While Western "gay-rights" campaigners have accused American evangelical Christian groups of promoting antigay sentiment in Uganda.

 Mr. Museveni accused “arrogant and careless Western groups” of seeking to draw Ugandan children into homosexuality.The Ugandangovernment spokesman, Ofwono Opondo, said Mr. Museveni wanted to sign the bill “with the full witness of the international media to demonstrate Uganda’s independence in the face of Western pressure and provocation.”

 Mr. Opondo announced on Twitter that Mr. Museveni had signed the bill, which drew condemnation from rights groups and Ugandan activists.The country’s Parliament approved the law in December, saying it was aimed “at strengthening the nation’s capacity to deal with emerging internal and external threats to the traditional heterosexual family.” "Gay-rights" activists in Uganda have vowed to oppose the legislation, which could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial Western development aid.According to Amnesty International, homosexuality is illegal in 38 of 54 African countries, but Western opposition to such measures is frequently criticized as akin to imperialism. (NY Times)

So why are ashamed to openly oppose תועבה????? We “never 

seek to impose our view on others. If only they could

 let us alone.”

Launch media viewer

Monday, February 24, 2014

More On Freedom Of Religon Over Gay "Rights" Bills Around The Country

In order to see how low liberals are willing to go to destroy religion look at how Evan Hurst how mischaracterizes these bills to Mother Jones (famous for publicizing the Romney 47% statement) .

Inside the Conservative Campaign to Launch "Jim Crow-Style" Bills Against Gay Americans

"In this new up-is-down world, anti-gay religious folks are 'practicing their faith' when they're baking cakes or renting out hotel rooms to travelers."

| Thu Feb. 20, 2014 3:00 AM GM
Kansas set off a national firestorm last week when the GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would have allowed anyone to refuse to do business with same-sex "couples" by citing religious beliefs. The bill, which covered both private businesses and individuals, including government employees, would have barred same-sex couples from suing anyone who denies them food service like cakes for same gender "weddings", hotel rooms when there as a "couple", social services, adoption rights for Ohel to be forced to give a child to a gay "couple", or employment to work in your child's school and tell them about their "spouse"—as long as the person denying the service said he or she had a religious objection to homosexuality. As of this week, the legislation was dead in the Senate. But the Kansas bill is not a one-off effort.

Republicans lawmakers and a network of conservative religious groups has been pushing similar bills in other states, essentially forging a national campaign that, critics say, would legalize "discrimination" on the basis of sexual orientation. Republicans in Idaho, OregonSouth Dakota, and Tennessee recently introduced provisions that mimic the Kansas legislation. And Arizona, Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Mississippi have introduced broader "religious freedom" bills with a unique provision that would also allow people to deny services or employment to LGBT Americans, legal experts say. 

"This is a concerted campaign that the religious Right has been hinting at for a couple of years now," says Evan Hurst, associate director of Truth Wins Out, a Chicago-based nonprofit that promotes gay rights. "The fact that they're doing it Jim Crow-style is remarkable this language is a blatant attempt to equate skin color with evil actions, in order to promote symphony for the "poor" gays, considering the fact that one would think the GOP would like to be electable among people under 50 sometime in the near future."

Several of these measures have sprung up within a short period of time. The Kansas bill was introduced by Republican state Rep. Charles Macheers on January 16. On January 28, Idaho state Rep. Lynn Luker (R-Boise) introduced a bill that would prohibit the state from yanking the professional licenses of people who deny service or employment to anyone (including LGBT customers) on the basis of their religious beliefs. (There's an exception for emergency responders.) Luker has since pulled that bill back into committee, to address concerns about the language being discriminatory.

On January 30, a coalition of Republican senators and representatives in South Dakota introduced a bill that would have allowed a business to refuse to serve or people due to their sexual orientation, or be compelled to hire someone because of their sexual orientation. Under this measure, a gay person who brought a lawsuit charging discrimination based on sexual orientation could have faced punitive damages of no less than $2,000. The bill also declared that it is protected speech to tell someone that his or her lifestyle is "wrong or a sin." so Dana Liebelson want to ban saying that homosexuality is wrong? The bill was killed this week by the state Senate judiciary committee.

On February 5, Republicans introduced legislation in both chambers of the Tennessee Legislature allowing a person or company to refuse to provide services such as food wedding cakes, accommodation wedding halls, counseling, adoption, or employment men wearing dresses in Jewish stores to people in civil unions or same-sex marriages, or transgender individuals, "if doing so would violate the sincerely held religious beliefs​ of the person." (Government employees are excluded.) State Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) tells Mother Jones that he sponsored the bill because "a person shouldn't get sued for choosing not to participate in a person's "wedding"." But this week, the bill's lead sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown), shelved the measure until next year after facing heavy criticism. And in Oregon, voters could have the opportunity this year to vote on a ballot initiative that would also allow people to refuse on religious grounds to support same-sex "couples". In addition to these bills, lawmakers in Arizona, Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Mississippi have recently introduced Religious Freedom Restoration Acts with a provision that could also allow "discrimination" against LGBT Americans/terrorists. These state-sponsored RFRAs, which aim to stop new laws from burdening religious exercise, are nothing new—29 states already have some kind of RFRA in place through legislation or court action. But legal experts say that these particular bills are unique in that they allow individuals—and in some states, businesses—to cite religion as a defense in a private lawsuit. In the past, courts have been split on the issue. But in 2012, in New Mexico, a photographer tried to use religion in court as grounds for refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding. Last year, the photographer's studio lost its discrimination lawsuit. The bills are a direct reaction to that lawsuit, say multiple legal experts. "The Kansas bill is more obvious, but some of these RFRAs will have similar effects…they're just as "bad"," says Maggie Garrett, legislative counsel for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State who clearly wants religious people to violate their religion.

The RFRAs and the bills that target same-sex marriage have been pushed by Republican lawmakers, but in some cases, they were first promoted or drafted by a network of conservative Christian groups. According to the Wichita Eagle, the American Religious Freedom Program (ARFP)—which is part of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative organization founded in 1976—crafted the language for the Kansas bill. Brian Walsh, executive director of the ARFP, which supports religious freedom measures, acknowledges that his group consulted with the legislators on the bill, but he says that lots of other groups did as well: "We gave them suggestions and they took some of them." Walsh says that ARFP was contacted by legislators who wrote the Tennessee bill and that the group frequently talked to legislators in South Dakota about "religious freedom" but not the state's specific bill. Julie Lynde, executive director of Cornerstone Family Council in Idaho, one of many state groups that are part of Citizen Link, a branch of Focus on the Family, told Al Jazeera America, "We've been involved in working on the language" of the Idaho bill. Another member of Citizen Link, the Arizona Policy Center, has been active in supporting the Arizona bill. And the Oregon ballot initiative was proposed by Friends of Religious Freedom, a conservative Oregon nonprofit. 
Walsh told Mother Jones he believes these bills, particularly the one in Kansas, have been misunderstood, and the aim is not to facilitate discrimination against the LGBT community. "Our goal—and we suspect the goal of others—has been to try to find the right balance between fully protecting religious freedom and other civil liberties so that both sides of the marriage debate can coexist harmoniously," he says. But Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU, takes a different stance: "These bills are "discriminatory", pure and simple."  "This seems to be a concerted Hail Mary campaign to carve out "special" rights for religious conservatives so that they don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else does," says Evan Hurst, from Truth Wins Out. "In this new up-is-down world, anti-gay religious folks are 'practicing their faith' when they're baking cakes or renting out hotel rooms to travelers. On the ground, [these bills] hurt real, live LGBT people." so this guy think that a bunch of gay terrorists should be able to force religious people to violate their religion by helping a same gender "wedding" then has the nerve to claim that they gay terrorists are the victims.   According to liberals the first ammendment the freedom to exercise your religion is not as important as the so called "implied" amendments (abortion, homosexuality etc.) what is the purpose of the first amendment according to liberals since they despise freedom of religion?
(Mother Jones) highlights my additions

Statements made on the floor when the Kansas Bill Passed the house
Rep. Charles Macheers, R-Shawnee, said on the House floor that his bill prevents discrimination.
“Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,” he said. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.”
Macheers told an anecdote about a florist in Washington who was sued for refusing to provide flowers for a gay wedding. He said his bill would protect business owners from similar civil claims.
The bill covers private and public employees. Government agencies would still be required to provide services, but individual clerks could refuse to serve same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs on marriage.
Businesses would still provide services, provided it was not unduly burdensome to do so.

Macheers said the bill puts Kansas “on the right side of history.”

Republicans say the bill does not target gay people. The wording of the bill would allow someone with a “sincerely held” religious belief against heterosexual marriage to deny service to a straight couple, they say.

Rep. Mark Kahrs, R-Wichita, said the bill would protect a lesbian photographer who wanted to refuse to work for a Catholic wedding based on the church’s stance against same-sex "marriage".

Macheers said the bill puts Kansas “on the right side of history.”

Holly Weatherford, spokeswoman for the Kansas chapter of the ACLU, said the Kansas bill goes far beyond protections in other states. “Kansas would be the first state to legalize discrimination on the part of employees—government employees,” she said.
She added the state’s laws already provide adequate protections for religious institutions Shuls, Yeshivas NOT individuals and businesses.
(Kansas Highlights our my additions

This is the Kansas Bill (bolding the very important parts)  everything in this would be a new law, highlights are explanations of the law for practical application

AN ACT concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodationswedding hall, advantages, facilities,
goodswedding rings, flowers etc., or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care ohel and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or this would apply to town clerks who have been forced around the country for refusing to preform these "marriages"
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no refusal by
an individual or religious entity to engage in any activity described in
section 1, and amendments thereto, shall result in:
(1) A civil claim or cause of action under state or local law based
upon such refusal; or
(2) an action by any governmental entity to penalize, withhold
benefits from, discriminate against or otherwise disadvantage any
protected individual or religious entity, under any state or local law.
(b) Any individual or religious entity named in or subject to a civil
action, an administrative action or any action by a governmental entity
may immediately assert the protections provided by section 1, and
amendments thereto, or this section, as a defense by moving to dismiss
such action. If the motion to dismiss is filed in an action before an
administrative tribunal, within 15 days after the filing of such motion any
party to such action may elect to transfer jurisdiction of such action to a
district court with proper venue. Within 60 days after such transfer of
jurisdiction, the district court shall decide whether the claimed protection
applies. The district court shall not permit any additional discovery or fact-
finding prior to making its decision.
(c) If a governmental entity, or any person asserts a claim or cause of
action, or takes any adverse action against an individual or religious entity
in violation of subsection (a), such individual or religious entity shall be
entitled upon request to recover all reasonable attorney fees, costs and
damages such individual or religious entity incurred as a result of such
(d) If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other non-
religious entity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, and
amendments thereto, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service
that is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies, the
individual's employer
, in directing the performance of such service,
shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or
shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be
done without undue hardship to the employer.
Sec. 3. As used in sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto:
(a) "Religious entity" means an organization, regardless of its non-
profit or for-profit status, and regardless of whether its activities are
deemed wholly or partly religious, that is:
(1) A religious corporation, association, educational institution or
(2) an entity operated, supervised or controlled by, or connected with,
a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society; or
(3) a privately-held business operating consistently with its sincerely
held religious beliefs, with regard to any activity described in section l,
and amendments thereto.
(b) "Governmental entity" means
the executive, legislative and judicial branches and any and all
agencies, boards, commissions, departments, districts, authorities or
other entities, subdivisions or parts whatsoever of state and local
government, as well as any person acting under color of law.
Sec. 4. (a) If any word, phrase, clause or provision of sections 1
through 4, and amendments thereto, or the application of any such word,
phrase, clause or provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
the remaining provisions shall be given effect without the invalid portion
and to this end the provisions of sections 1 through 4, and amendments
thereto, are severable.
(b) Nothing in sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto, shall be
construed to allow any individual or entity, acting under color of state law
to perform any marriage prohibited by state law, including, but not limited
to, laws relating to plural marriage, incest, consanguinity and marriageable
(c) Nothing in sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto, shall be
construed to authorize any governmental discrimination or penalty against
any individual or religious entity based upon its performance, facilitation
or support of any celebrations of same-gender unions or relationships.
(d) The provisions of sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto,
shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to
the maximum extent permitted by their terms and by the constitutions of
this state and the United States of America.
Sec. 5. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its
publication in the statute book.

Read more here:

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Arizona Legislature Passes Bill To Protect Religious People Against Gay Terrorism

This new bill protects all individuals and businesses in Arizona from anti "discrimination" bills if the anti "discrimination" would force someone to violate their religion.  This would protect religious florist, bakers, photographers, wedding hall owners, and possibly even the store owners in Williamsburg.         SO HOW COME SIMCHA FELDER/DOV HIKIND DON'T SPONSOR A SIMILAR TYPE OF LEGISLATION IN NEW YORK?

Religious freedom bill riles gay rights supporters

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Legislature gave final approval to legislation that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays, drawing backlash from Democrats who called the proposal "state-sanctioned discrimination" and an embarrassment.

The 33-27 vote by the House Thursday evening sends the legislation to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and puts Arizona back at the forefront of a "polarizing" piece of legislation four years after the state enacted an immigration crackdown that caused a national furor.
Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansashow come are "Orthodox" legislators or "friends" that the OU/Agudah etc. love so much are not pushing for this in Illinois (Ira Silverstein) , New York (Dov Hikind, Simcha Felder, Phillip Goldfeder, Michael Simanowitz), New Jersey (Gary Schaer), Maryland etc. don't sponsor this?
Republicans stressed that the bill is about protecting religious freedom and not discrimination. They frequently cited the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple and said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts and law enforcement.
The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination. It also allows the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of their religion.

The legislation prompted a heated debate on the floor of the House, touching on issues such as the religious freedom, constitutional protections and civil rights.
Opponents raised scenarios in which gay people in Arizona could be denied service at a restaurant or refused medical treatment if a business owner thought homosexuality was not in accordance with his religion. One lawmaker held up a sign that read "NO GAYS ALLOWED" in arguing what could happen if the law took effect, drawing a rebuke for violating rules that bar signs on the House floor.  but gays have no problem with putting up laws that make it so no Orthodox Jew (or any other decent person) can't run a business because of gay discrimination laws
Democrats also said there were a host of other scenarios not involving sexual orientations where someone could raise their religious beliefs as a discrimination the stores in Williamsburg for example
The bill is backed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and gay marriage. The group says the proposal is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarifies existing state law.
"We see a growing hostility toward religion," said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the group.

All but three Republicans in the House backed Senate Bill 1062 Thursday evening. All three House Republicans who broke ranks said they had problems with the proposal, though none elaborated at length.
"I disagree with the bill," said Rep. Ethan Orr. "I think it's a bad bill."
The two others were Reps. Heather Carter and Kate Brophy McGee.
The Senate passed the bill a day earlier on a straight party-line vote of 17-13.

Brewer doesn't comment on pending legislation, but she vetoed a similar measure last year yet she says shes against it showing that politicians lie and we can need to judge them based on their actions,  she said "I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with, But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."  yet she vetoed the bill that stops the government from mandating behavior she's against. That action, however, came during an unrelated political standoff, and it's not clear whether she would support or reject this plan.  showing she doesn't care about freedom of religon
The legislation comes also as an increasing number of conservative states grapple with ways to counter the increasing legality of gay "marriage".
Arizona's voters approved a ban on same-sex "marriage" as a state constitutional amendment in 2008. It's one of 29 states with such prohibitions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Federal judges have recently struck down bans based on unconstitutional judicial whims in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but those decisions are under appeal.
Republican Sen. Steve Yarbrough called his proposal a First Amendment issue during the Senate debate.
"This bill is not about allowing discrimination," Yarbrough said. "This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."
Democrats say it is an outright attack on the rights of gays and lesbians that will reverberate through the economy because businesses and tourists will avoid Arizona like they did after the passage SB1070 in 2010 that cracked down on immigration.  if someone wants to travel in America to see the wonders of creation they may want to stop by the Grand Canyon
"This bill is about going after the "rights" of the LGBT "community" in Arizona," said Rep. Chad Campbell, the Democratic minority leader. "This is going to be horrible for our economy."
But Republicans said it was simply an added protection for the faithful in the state who disapprove of gay "marriage" and want to be able to reject participating.
"Please, I will accept you because you are a child of God, I love you because you are a child of God," said GOP Rep. Steve Montenegro. "But please don't ask me to go against my religious beliefs."
The bill is similar to a proposal last year brought by Yarbrough but vetoed by the Republican Brewer. That legislation also would have allowed people or religious groups to sue if they believed they might be subject to a government regulation that infringed on their religious rights. Yarbrough stripped a provision from the bill in hopes Brewer will embrace the new version.
Civil liberties and secular groups countered that Yarbrough and the Center for Arizona Policy had sought to minimize concerns that last year's bill had far-reaching and hidden implications. During the Senate debate Wednesday, Democrats said the bill could allow people to break nearly any law and cite religious freedom as a defense.
Yarbrough called those worries "unrealistic and unsupported hypotheticals" and said criminal laws will continue to be prosecuted by the courts.
Rep. Chad Campbell of Phoenix, the Democratic minority leader, said during debate that gays and lesbians across the country would get the message that they're not welcome in Arizona. but they liberals don't care that religious people get the same message by not passing this bill because liberals think gays are more important then religious people
"We're telling them religious-people or deviants?, 'We don't like you. We don't want you here. We're not going to protect you," he said.
But the House sponsor, Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, said the bill had been blown out of proportion.
"We're making some tweaks here because of what's been going on in other states where people have been punished for their beliefs," Farnsworth said.
Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, also said the Democrats were making too much of the bill's effect.
"Sometimes people's rhetoric tends to inflame instead of explain," Biggs said. "And I would suggest if there is going to be a backlash because of 1062 ... it will because of the intemperate and inaccurate rhetoric."
(AP) highlights are my additions

Arizona Policy's talking points in favor of this billThe boxed argument is responding to the central argument of liberals and why liberals can say with a straight face that they are in favor of freedom of religion trying to force you to rent a wedding hall for a same gender "wedding", they fundamentally only believe that religion doesn't apply to your entire life only to worship/avodah

Friday, February 21, 2014

State Of Israel To March In New Zealand Gay Parade On Shabbos

Embassy of Israel to participate in Auckland Gay Parade

19 February 2014
Embassy of Israel to participate in Auckland Gay Parade
Whilst BDS Campaigners have fled in their minivan to Wellington to protest against the performance of the world renowned Dance Company Batsheva at the New Zealand Festival, the Embassy of Israel will be participating in Auckland’s annual Gay Parade this Saturday the 22nd of February.
This event, which celebrates people of all genders and ethnicities underpins Israel’s stance on democracy, tolerance and freedom of speech and proves to differ the argument of those who claim that Israel is an Apartheid State!
The Parade starts at 19.00 and departs from Ponsonby Road. Anyone who stands with Israel and embraces Israel's democracy and wants to join the Israeli representation can contact the Embassy by email on:
(Scoop) Since the parade start on Saturday before shekia and end after tzies they will most likley be mechalel shabbos according to both the Chazon Ish and Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky

Send Email protests to the embassy (address in the press release)

Thursday, February 20, 2014

"Orthodox" Jewish Woman To Celebrate Her Daughter's Same Gender "Wedding"


Don’t Exclude Our Gay, "Orthodox" Children

February 19, 2014 By:
Sunnie EpsteinYMS

As a Modern "Orthodox" Jew and a Jewish educator, I have written, spoken and taught about homosexuality and our need as a community to address this issue within the framework of halacha it's simple it's assur, or Jewish law, for many years. I had already been an advocate for the LGBTQ community for decades when our daughter Rachie, one of our four children, came out more than four years ago I wonder if there is a connection here, where were the rabbis condeming a "orthodox" jew advocating for LGBTQ?.

Why? Because I feel that as religious Jews, we have a moral imperative to ensure that all members of our community are safe, valued and healthy. We are taught to use the midah of compassion here, as we do for so many other issues.   compassion doesn't mean throwing out the Torah in the garbage

When Rachie was 22 years old, she called me and my husband, and in the course of our conversation, basically said, “Mom, I am seeing someone I really care about, and this person is a woman. I am gay.” Neither of us were surprised. I asked her if she was happy and if this was a true expression of her core personality. My husband, Ken, just reminded her to stay safe and not do anything dangerous.

As an "educated" person, I am certain that biology and “how we are wired” is just the way G-d makes us educated means being able to back this preposterous notion with facts and figures. Furthermore, I am aware that 10 to 15 percent of any community is on the gay spectrum, and there is no exemption from this reality in the religious Jewish community since the 10 percent number which originated from Kinsey you should remember even he acknowledged that Orthodox Jews had much less homosexuality then everyone else.

My husband and I firmly believe that as shomrei mitzvot, or Torah-observant, Jews, we have an obligation to accept, protect and value all human beings who are created in the image of G-d, betzelem elokim which has nothing to do with homosexuality. G-d makes us as G-d chooses and we are not to stand in judgment nor are we to exclude those that G-d creates, for every human being is designed by G-d, and to allow any such exclusion is to directly insult G-d as well as the person excluded . Halacha teaches us this. does this also apply to pedophiles, burglars, rapists, murderers?

Of course, many in our community and extended family do not see it this way. Rachie has not been able to see herself associated with anything “Orthodox,” though she is observant except publicly violating in a lehachis manner for a issur deoryas that carries a punishment of malkos mardus and engaged Jewishly in profound and meaningful ways.

However, this has changed recently, due to her involvement in ESHEL, the "Orthodox" LGBTQ community that is named for the tent into which Avraham and Sarah invited all who came by. Rachie —and the rest of us — now has a home for her religiously "observant", gay self. more like nimrod

I am deeply saddened by any community that judges and pushes our daughter away. Any community that does not fully embrace and value Rachie is the one that loses, for she is a gifted young lady and an "observant" and knowledgeable Jew. I often la­ment how our observant communities are sending away some of our exceptional people who could contrib­ute so much and would — if only they were embraced and valued instead of judged and excluded. she wants us to embrace homosexuals or homosexuality lets continue reading to find out.

Now that Rachie is committed to spending her life with her beloved Liz, our main challenge is how we as a family navigate our "Orthodox" community. We are making some decisions that are seen as compromises to some but allow us to more successfully achieve our goal.

For example, in planning a Shabbat "Kiddush" for the "couple", we will do this at our home with friends and community members, rather than at our synagogue, to ensure that those present want to be part of the celebration. We will plan their "wedding" with the same approach, knowing that some relatives and friends will not attend.  "kiddush", "wedding" by "orthodox" jews to celebrate homosexuality see the problem yet?

As time goes on and we come to terms with the reality of all members of our observant world, our hope is that more of our community will learn to see and accept and value each of our children for who they are and the sexuality they were "born" with.  she wants us to value not just the homosexual but homosexuality!

Sunnie Epstein and her family are active members of ESHEL, which is planning a Parent Retreat March 7-9 at Capital Camps in Waynesboro, Pa. Contact the author at: shulisrose@ or Miryam Kabakov at:
(Jewishexponent) highlights my comments

If your wondering how we got to a point that someone can claim to be Orthodox and write this trash



Tuesday, February 11, 2014

How Barack/Michelle Obama Are Using Gay Athletes To Promote Homosexuality

Michelle Obama's tweet on Michael Sam a college football player who just "came out".
The “-mo” at the end of Obama’s tweet signifies that she wrote the tweet herself, as opposed to her staff. Biden also followed with his own personally signed tweet Monday afternoon. (Politico)

And recently they invited the previous no name athlete to "come out", to be their guest by the State of the Union

Jason Collins among first lady’s State of the Union guests

First lady Michelle Obama’s guests for the State of the Union address will include former NBA player Jason Collins and two survivors of the Boston Marathon bombing, the White House announced Monday.

Others joining the first lady for Tuesday night’s speech in the House chamber include the District of Columbia’s 2013 teacher of the year and the fire chief of tornado-ravaged Moore, Okla., as well as a teenager who brought a marshmallow-shooting air cannon to the 2012 White House Science Fair.

Second lady Dr. Jill Biden and White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett will also sit with the first lady.

The guests who join the first lady often help illustrate key points the president makes in his speech. President Barack Obama’s guests last year included family members of the victims of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting as he demanded that Congress vote on tougher gun laws.

Collins, who spent 12 years years playing professional basketball, drew the praise of the president and first lady after coming out last year in a Sports Illustrated cover story. “He seems like a terrific young man, and I told him I couldn’t be prouder,” the president said soon after he spoke with Collins by phone. In May, the first lady and Collins co-hosted a major Democratic National Committee fundraiser for LGBT donors.

Barack Obama's tweet on Michael Sam a college football player who just "came out"