Concerning the First Amendment

Joseph Story was an early Supreme Court justice.  His Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States have been cited repeatedly by the Supreme Court.   There are 172 citations in federal court decisions since 2021.  Concerning freedom of religion, let me quote from there:

1877. The real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism;, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. [2 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 606 (1873).

If you examine the laws of the early Republic, you will see that this appears repeatedly.  The dominance of Christianity was simply assumed.  The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, section 10, includes this requirement for officeholders:

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

From the North Carolina Constitution of 1776:

That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

 The South Carolina Constitution of 1778, Article III:

III. That as soon as may be after the first meeting of the senate and house of representatives, and at every first meeting of the senate and house of representatives thereafter, to be elected by virtue of this constitution, they shall jointly in the house of representatives choose by ballot from among themselves or from the people at large a governor and commander-in-chief, a lieutenant-governor, both to continue for two years, and a privy council, all of the Protestant religion, and till such choice shall be made the former president or governor and commander-in-chief, and vice-president or lieutenant-governor, as the case may be, and privy council, shall continue to act as such.

Article XII defines the qualifications of state senators:

 [N]o person shall be eligible to a seat in the said senate unless he be of the Protestant religion, and hath attained the age of thirty years, and hath been a resident in this State at least five years.

Article XIII defines the requirements to be an elector for the General Assembly, and to be elected to the General Assembly:

The qualification of electors shall be that every free white man, and no other person, who acknowledges the being of a God, and believes in a future state of rewards and punishments, and who has attained to the age of one and twenty years.... No person shall be eligible to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion, and hath been a resident in this State for three years previous to his election.

Article 38 does establish a religion--but not a particular denomination:

 XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.

 Obviously, the Court lost the original intent along the way.

The Framing Understanding of the First Amendment

Not necessarily the only one, but Justice Story is often cited. From Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

1877. The real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism;, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. [Story, 2 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 606 (1873),]

 

Blasphemy Laws

10/10/25 GB News:

Robert Jenrick has hailed a "free speech ictory" for Hamit Coskun after he won an appeal against his public order conviction, which he got for burning a Koran.

Speaking to GB News, the Shadow Justice Secretary declared that the "landmark case" was an attempt to implement "backdoor blasphemy laws" into Britain."

I can understand the desire of Muslims to make Western nations like the hellholes they (or their parents) fled.  But the willingness of Westerners to help them is really absurd.

Ending Islamic Insularity in Italy

I wish I had a gerund starting with I to get fully alliterative. 10/9/25 Harici:

"Italy’s ruling party, Brothers of Italy (FdI), has announced plans to draft a bill aimed at banning face and body coverings such as the burqa and niqab in all public spaces across the country, describing it as a measure against “Islamic separatism.”

“Freedom of religion is sacred, but it must be practiced openly, with full respect for our constitution and the principles of the Italian state,” Andrea Delmastro, one of the lawmakers drafting the bill, said in a Facebook post on Wednesday.

"The ban would prohibit wearing face-covering garments in all public spaces, including shops, schools, and offices. Violators would face fines ranging from €300 to €3,000."

Would such a law here violate the First Amendment?  You may recall that during COVID, sone states had to repeal their Klan-era mask bans.  There is a legitimate public safety concern with criminals not being identifiable by witnesses.  Peace officers in uniform with identifying badge number solves the legitimate problem.

If the burkhas are really this important, go to a Muslim nation.

In the Battle Between Free Speech and Feelingz, Guess Who Loses?

2/25/22 Front Page:

Päivi Räsänen is a member of the Finnish Parliament, a former minister of the interior, a public speaker and the mother of five grown children.

She faces a heavy fine and two years in prison for quoting the Bible.  In response to the Evangelical Lutheran Church’s affiliation with the Helsinki LGBT Pride event, she posted the Bible passage from Romans 1: 24-27 which condemns homosexual behavior.

Finnish prosecutors stated that the use of the word “sin” could be harmful, and alleged that Ms. Räsänen’s comments were made to cause intolerance, contempt, and hatred toward homosexuals.

But couldn’t the prosecutor’s remarks cause intolerance, contempt and hatred toward Ms. Räsänen?  If criticizing another person’s beliefs or behavior is a hate crime, then isn’t she the victim of a hate crime?

The court prosecutors worried that the word “sin” could be harmful.  One supposes they mean harmful to one’s self-esteem.  And, indeed, the list of sins in Romans 1: 24-32 is meant to make you feel bad about yourself.  From a Biblical perspective, acknowledgment of sin, followed by repentance, leads on to salvation.  In other words, feeling bad about your behavior is, in some cases, a good thing.  It’s not only homosexual behavior that is condemned in Romans I.  The extended passage condemns all manner of sins including idolatry, deceitfulness, envy, gossip, slander, and disobedience to parents.

From one point of view this is highly offensive and insulting to those disposed to deceitfulness and slander.  From another point of view, it can be looked upon as highly therapeutic—a moment of self-recognition that leads on to change. 

Let me join in offending:

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from[c] faith for his name’s sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul’s Longing to Visit Rome

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. 9 God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you 10 in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.

11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12 that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters,[d] that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15 That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[e] just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”[f]
God’s Wrath Against Sinful Hu

manity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

California Goes Full Fascist

9/10/20 Los Angeles Daily News:

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Thursday, Sept. 10, granted the county’s request for an injunction prohibiting Grace Community Church in Sun Valley from holding indoor services in a ruling that emphasized the importance of following health orders to prevent the community spread of the coronavirus.

After hearing arguments Friday from attorneys for the county and the church, Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled that Grace Community Church and its pastor, John MacArthur, are prohibited from conducting indoor worship services in violation of county health orders. The judge also ruled that the church must not conduct any outdoor worship services unless it fully complies with the county’s mandates relating to physical distancing and face coverings.

Whether this is wise or not is a separate issue, but "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and the 14th Amendment imposes that limitations on state and local governments.  The abolitionists who helped runaway slaves were similarly putting the laws of God over the laws of men.  Again, a Republicans (abolitionists) vs.  Democrats (the slave owners).

My church has indoor services and an outdoor service under the trees.  We sit outside, even I though I think the risk is low inside where people are wearing masks.

I look forward to the video of mass arrests on Sunday.  A great Trump ad.  "What the Democratic Party does." And as usual, the Democrats are so insular that they do not see how this will play among moderate and conservative Christian Democrats (they do exist although I have no idea why).

The Fascism is Strong in This One

7/5/20 Sacramento Bee:

Californians are still free to attend their house of worship. But they’re not supposed to sing or chant.

Citing the risk of spreading the coronavirus, updated COVID-19 guidelines issued Wednesday by the state Department of Public Health say “places of worship must therefore discontinue singing and chanting activities.”

In previously allowing religious organizations to reopen in late May, the state merely said these institutions should “strongly consider discontinuing singing, group recitation, and other practices and performances.”

Is the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause missing from copies of the Bill of Rights in California?  A rule that treated religious services the same as all other public gatherings would survive.  What is the rule for BLM protests?

And don't forget the Babylon Bee's take:

California Unveils Lions' Den For Christians Who Sing In Church...

California Worship Enforcement Officers began rounding up offenders to throw into the lions' den. "You're a good, good, FaAAAAHHHHH!!!" cried one worship leader in Southern California as he was tased and pulled off the stage by officers. The congregation wanted to rush to his defense, but they were honestly kinda happy "Good, Good Father" was over.

Fortunately, the lions were on loan from the San Franscisco Zoo and so were vegans.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article243973397.html#storylink=cpy

This Comes Perilously Close to a Religious Exercise Viiolation

Maybe not even close.   3/22/19 Fortune:

Don’t plan on getting a Chick-Fil-A sandwich next time you fly through San Antonio Airport.

The city’s district council approved a new concession agreement for the airport on Thursday that will bring in more local establishments and specifically bans the popular chicken sandwich chain. At issue, apparently, is the donation of money by the Chick-Fil-A to groups that have been accused of discriminating against the LGBTQ community.

“With this decision, the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion,” said City Councilman Roberto Treviño. “San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.”

Imagine a city airport that refused to rent space to a Muslim-owned business and said so.

What a Baker Does in Private is None of the Government's Business

Reuters reports that the Court had ruled that freedom of religion allows you to refuse to bake a cake against your conscience.   They were careful not to challenge antidiscrimination laws in general which are so longstanding and to challenge severe racial discrimination often encouraged or required by state and local governments.   The Gaystapo is being told to stop the abuse of those who want to say " No," instead of forcing them over the counter and saying,  "Do as I say and enjoy it. "

Remember: Europe is An Enlightened Multicultural Society

Especially compared to Trump's Racist, Islamophobic America.  Associated Press:

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Denmark joined some other European countries in deciding Thursday to ban garments that cover the face, including Islamic veils such as the niqab or burqa.

In a 75-30 vote with 74 absentees, Danish lawmakers approved the law presented by the center-right governing coalition. The government says that it is not aimed at any religions and does not ban headscarves, turbans or the traditional Jewish skull cap.

However, the law is popularly known as the “Burqa Ban” and is mostly seen as being directed at the dress worn by some conservative Muslim women. Few Muslim women in Denmark wear full-face veils.

Laws that interfere with a person's religious beliefs bother me.  But living in a society where the most radical forms of Islam become dominant or important political forces are beyond "bother": they are a real danger to the West's tolerance of difference.

Can We Get One More Quirky Idea into This Suit?

4/25/18 Charlotte Observer:

One of North Carolina's most notorious all-male prisons is the focus of a court fight over religious liberty led by a transgender witch.

Jennifer Ann Jasmaine says in her handwritten, federal lawsuit that Lanesboro Correctional Institution is blocking the practice of her spiritual beliefs, which happen to be rooted in witchcraft.

I'm waiting for the "I'm following the path of my Aztec ancestors.  Can I have an obsidian knife, a pyramid, and some POWs?"

For Those Who Thought Trump Would be Reluctant to Protect the Rights of Christians

1/18/18 NPR:

Health care workers who want to refuse to treat patients because of religious or moral beliefs will have a new defender in the Trump administration.

The top civil rights official at the Department of Health and Human Services is creating the Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom to protect doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to take part in procedures like abortion or treat certain people because of moral or religious objections.

"Never forget that religious freedom is a primary freedom, that it is a civil right that deserves enforcement and respect," said Roger Severino, the director of HHS's Office for Civil Rights, at a ceremony to announce the new division.

The establishment of the division reverses an Obama-era policy that barred health care workers from refusing to treat transgender individuals or people who have had or are seeking abortions.

I love it!  A "primary freedom": one in the Bill of Rights.  My copy doesn't have any transgender right to be told, "There's nothing wrong with your delusions."  The ACLU is of course upset, and this appears on National Pervert Radio just ads whipped cream.

The Comments Are A Riot

Australia's atheists are upset that many Australians list their religion as "Jedi."

Here’s the problem: On the 2011 census (it takes places every five years) 64,390 Australians put “Jedi” down as their religion, an increase of from 58,053 on the 2006 census, according to The Brisbane Times. Numbers like that put “Jedi” right behind Sikh on the list of religions in the country. It seems unlikely that all these people truly believe themselves to be actual Jedi, and most of them make the claim as a harmless way to declare theirStar Wars fandom and give the government the middle finger at the same time.

However, a group called the Atheist Foundation of Australia is leading a campaign to get people to stop making this joke. Their reasoning is, that when officially counted, Jedi gets classified as a “Not Defined” religion instead of “No Religion.” When that happens, they believe “it makes Australia seem more religious than it really is.” Which, again, doesn’t sound like a problem, but “data on religious affiliation is used for public policy, city planning, community support facilities and more,” according to this cute infographic.

Is there anyone besides me who finds the notion absurd that government resources are going to be allocated based on religion?   The comments on this at Instapundit are a riot.  It appears that Yoda is posting:

Hmmmm, atheists, no humor have they.

Atheists: Sad pathetic creatures who spend every moment of the day fearing and loathing a supernatural entity they claim doesn't even exist. 

"God doesn't exist and I'm very angry with Him!" 

I think you have a point. There's this harmless old guy in our town who thinks the Confederacy won the war. And yet, I don't find myself terrified of anti-carpetbaggers. I don't think about it much at all, to be perfectly frank. 

But... wouldn't it be better if the Atheists marked themselves as Jedi? Then the government could spend their money on cool stuff like light sabres and space ships. By coming down on the Jedi like this, all the Atheists are likely to get are Jedi safe spaces and public debates on whether or not robes are appropriate school clothes. 

A long time ago, in a galaxy far away there were those who, well, not to put to fine a point on it, were really really gullible. It seems it's not so long ago and not so far away. 

The stupid. Burns it does. 

I thought I felt a disturbance in the Farce. Mate. 

As for the Atheists, "I find their lack of faith disturbing" 

What I had to say to the State Affairs Commitee in Opposition to HB 2 "Add the Words"

HB 2 was an attempt to add sexual orientation and gender identity to Idaho's public accommodations anti-discrimination law.

No on HB 2

My name is Clayton Cramer.  I teach history at the College of Western Idaho.  My

specialization is Constitutional History.  My work has been cited in multiple decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and in many state supreme courts.

I am asking you to vote against HB 2 because it is an attempt to suppress what has been our country’s tradition of tolerance of different religious beliefs and diversity with respect to laws.

There is a longstanding American tradition of the Right to Conscience:   

·        Colonial and state governments often exempted members of pacifist denominations from the obligation to perform militia duty to prevent conflict between religious beliefs and societal duties.

•         Conscientious Objector Status was developed during World War II for those who objected to war based on religious conviction.

A law applicable to everyone will often exempt those who consider it a violation of their religious beliefs:

·        Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) struck down a mandatory school attendance law because “respondents sincerely believed that high school attendance was contrary to the Amish religion and way of life, and that they would endanger their own salvation and that of their children by complying with the law.” The state’s laws infringed on a fundamental right “such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”

·        Old Order Amish and Mennonites among other denominations are exempt from the requirement to pay Social Security taxes (IRS Form 4029) again based on their deeply held belief that insurance is contrary to their religion.

·        Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2013) held that a law requiring a business to cover contraception under its insurance was contrary to the business owners’ principles because it violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

Adding sexual orientation to Idaho’s antidiscrimination law will infringe on the right of people with a moral objection to homosexuality to express that objection.  Cases around the country involving similar statutes have had the effect of driving Christians out of business because they were unwilling to compromise their religious beliefs.

•         Elane Photography v.Willock (N.M. 2013) upheld a substantial fine against a wedding photographer who declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, contrary to her religious objections.

•         Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado (2014)  stopped making wedding cakes after they were ordered to make same-sex wedding cakes. 

•         (2014) Sweet Cakes by Melissa was fined $150,000 by the Oregon state government for refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake.

•         (2012) The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights threatened the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (a United Methodist Church) with loss of its tax exempt status for refusing to book a same-sex wedding reception at its facilities.

•         State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers (Benton Co. Sup. Ct. 2013) requiring a flower shop to supply flowers to a same-sex wedding.

At the core of “add the words” is the assumption that sexual orientation is something people are born with, like race, or sex.  There is a lot of evidence that this is not true.  Since the 1990s, multiple studies of behavioral and health problems in the gay community have found that non-heterosexuals are very disproportionately victims of childhood sexual abuse.

·        Roberts, Glymour, & Koenen, “Does Maltreatment in Childhood Affect Sexual Orientation in Adulthood?” Arch Sex Behav. Feb 2013; 42(2): 161–171 “history of sexual abuse predicted increased prevalence of same-sex attraction by 2.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 2.5), any same-sex partners by 1.4 percentage points (95% CI = 1.0, 1.9), and same-sex identity by 0.7 percentage points (95% CI = 0.4, 0.9). Effects of sexual abuse on men’s sexual orientation were substantially larger than on women’s. Effects of non-sexual maltreatment were significant only for men and women’s sexual identity and women’s same-sex partners.”

·        Wilsnack, Kristianson, Hughes, & Benson, “CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE IN LESBIANS AND HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN,” Child Abuse Negl. Mar 2012; 36(3): 260–265:

¡  “Childhood sexual abuse (CSA) is a strong predictor of adverse physical and mental health outcomes (Koenig, Doll, O’Leary, & Pequegnat, 2004; Lalor & McElvaney, 2010). Recent research has found that CSA is reported more frequently by lesbians than by heterosexual women (Austin et al., 2008;Balsam, Rothblum, & Beauchaine, 2005; Stoddard, Dibble, & Fineman, 2009). Possible reasons for lesbians’ higher CSA rates include childhood maltreatment (e.g., physical and sexual abuse) because of gender atypical behavior (Tjaden, Thoennes, & Allison, 1999), and involvement in behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, running away from home) that increase risks of sexual victimization, following family and peer rejection due to same-gender orientation (Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009).”

¡  The study itself finds that lesbians were far more likely to be victimized as children than heterosexual women, and the severity of that abuse was far more profound.  The odds ratio in Table 1 [in the article] shows how much more common the abuse of the lesbians had been than the heterosexuals -- 3.07 times for any type of CSA, and the severity measures are in nearly every category more severe for the lesbians than for the heterosexual women.

·        Friedman, Marshal, Guadamuz, Wei, Wong, Sawewyc, & Stall, “A Meta-Analysis of Disparities in Childhood Sexual Abuse, Parental Physical Abuse, and Peer Victimization Among Sexual Minority and Sexual Nonminority Individuals,” Am J Public Health. Aug 2011; 101(8): 1481–1494: “Compared with sexual nonminority adolescents, sexual minority adolescents were on average 2.9 times more likely (odds ratio [OR]=3.94; 95% CI=3.45, 4.57) to report childhood sexual abuse. The mean of the absolute prevalence was 40.4% for bisexual females, 32.1%, for lesbian females, and 16.9% for heterosexual females. The mean of the absolute prevalence was 24.5% for bisexual males, 21.2% for gay males, and 4.64% for heterosexual males…The higher rates of abuse experienced by sexual minority youths may be one of the driving mechanisms underlying higher rates of mental health problems, substance use, risky sexual behavior, and HIV reported by sexual minority adults.”

·        Purcell, Patterson, & Spikes, “Childhood Sexual Abuse Experienced By Gay & Bisexual Men: Understanding the Disparities and Interventions to Help Eliminate Them,” in Woltski, Stall, & Valdiserri, Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States(2008): 

¡  “How Prevalent Is CSA [Childhood Sexual Abuse] among MSM [men who have sex with men]?

“Relatively high rates of CSA have been reported in every sample of MSM that has been reported, with rates similar to rates of abuse for women.  Table 3-1 lists data from 17 different samples from the past 15 years that have reported CSA prevalence among MSM.  The range of prevalence rates is from 11.8% to 37.0%....  A national probability sample of almost 5000 men ages 15 to 44 collected in 2002 for the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) found that 14.9% of MSM reported coercive CSA before age 18.

“Gorey and Leslie estimated prevalence of CSA among the general male population at 5% to 8%....  In general, rates of CSA among general samples of men are less than 10%...”

With so much evidence that homosexuals are disproportionately victims of childhood sexual abuse, perhaps the high rates of suicide, substance abuse, and depression among gays are not because of discrimination, but because of the high rates of childhood sexual abuse?

This bill will not address the deeper roots of the problem and will force many people to violate their religious and moral convictions, which in turn, violates America’s long-standing tradition to the right of conscience. 

Thank you.

Clayton Cramer