WASHINGTON – Social conservatives are constantly reprimanded by social moderates for being so "obsessed" with those boring and frustrating issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, illegal drugs, when Leftists never pause their social agenda to move further and further away from traditional values.
Take for example President Obama's executive order calling on federally-funded government schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms, showers and dressing rooms of the opposite sex. Obama's agenda goal forces schools to accept and embrace students' demands based on the vague terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" or lose federal funding assistance.
Conservatives ask if the president and Congress interpret those terms so that school administrators may know they're avoiding discrimination charges? The terms' definitions are unclear, and thus difficult to enact and enforce.
However, 43 Republicans joined U.S. House Democrats this week to ban federal contractors from discriminating in their private businesses based on those same vague terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."
Four GOP members of the U.S. House's Illinois delegation – Bob Dold, Rodney Davis, Adam Kinzinger and John Shimkus – joined the Democrats in supporting the effort.
Congressman Shimkus' support for the measure was especially confusing since he made a public statement in favor of keeping and supporting the term "one-man, one-woman" in the IL GOP's platform last weekend.
UPDATE X2: Congressman Shimkus' office sent Illinois Review this explanation after this story was posted:
WASHINGTON – Congressman John Shimkus (R, Illinois-15) released the following statement after requesting the Congressional Record reflect that his vote on the Maloney Amendment, As Amended by Pitts Amendment was recorded incorrectly on the night of Wednesday, May 25:
“My position on this issue has not and will not change. I’ve consistently defended religious liberty and I always will. During a series of 14 votes on the House floor, I accidentally cast a ‘yea’ vote for the Maloney Amendment when I intended to vote ‘nay.’ I regret the mistake.”
Neither of the other three that supported the President's non-discrimination executive order of 2014 voiced their opinion publicly on the IL GOP's same sex marriage controversy.
UPDATE x3: Congressman Rodney Davis's spokesperson Ashley Phelps sent over the following statement:
The Maloney Amendment was simply about preventing employer discrimination, and had nothing to do with Obama's executive order on school bathrooms. Voting for that amendment was a vote to uphold the First Amendment while also protecting religious freedoms.
Also more to the point, Congressman Davis voted for another amendment offered by Rep. Pittenger that prevents the Obama Administration from withholding federal funds from North Carolina if it does not comply with Obama's executive order because he believes in states' rights.
It's also important to remember that these are amendments to spending bills and if we continue to let them be derailed on these issues, we take away Congress' 'power of the purse' and let the president's run-away spending continue.
UPDATE x1: Congressman Adam Kinzinger's spokesperson Maura Gillespie explained Kinzinger's vote:
The Congressman doesn’t believe in discrimination in federal workplace hiring, and the amendment voted on includes protections for religious freedoms. It’s a shame for so-called “non-profit” organizations to use this as a means to fundraise.
Ryan Anderson of the conservative, non-profit Heritage Foundation wrote in the Daily Signal this week:
On Wednesday night, 43 Republican members of Congress joined the Democrats to vote for President Barack Obama’s transgender agenda.
Whereas last week Congress voted to reject this proposal—known as the Maloney amendment—last night they voted to ratify Obama’s 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation and gender identity” in their private employment policies.
And, of course, “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity” can be something as simple as having a bathroom policy based on biological sex, not gender identity, as we learned last week from Obama’s transgender directives. And “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” can be something as reasonable as an adoption agency preferring married moms and dads for orphans, than other arrangements.
Once again, who are the ones that are really obsessed with social issues and changing them to reflect non-traditional standards? And who defines these terms? How will they be enforced?
