Main | Monday, October 22, 2007

Rumored: White House May Back ENDA

Wackjob closet case "Porno" Pete LaBabera, the guy who sends undercover camera crews to International Mr. Leather and Folsom Street Fair, is claiming on his Americans For Truth About Homosexuality site that White House staffers were involved in crafting the religious exemptions to ENDA, possibly signaling that President Bush would not veto the bill.
Americans For Truth has learned that a White House official has boasted to pro-family leaders attending a private Administration briefing that White House staffers were involved in the negotiations to craft expanded religious exemption language for the new ENDA bill, H.R. 3685 (discussed below). Call President Bush at 202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414 ( to urge him to publicly pledge to veto the dangerous ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) bill, H.R. 3685 in ANY form should it pass.

At the briefing, the White House official did not commit to the assembled evangelical leaders that the President would veto H.R. 3685, saying that they will wait to see the bill’s final language, according to our source. This is troubling in that vetoing ENDA in any form is regarded as a “no-brainer” by pro-family activists, who are counting on Bush to stop it. Failure to veto ENDA would be a devastating defeat for pro-family forces and a huge gift to homosexual lobbyists. Call the President (202-456-111) and urge him to “please publicly pledge to veto ENDA, H.R. 3685, in any form if it passes Congress.”
The version of ENDA to be voted upon on Wednesday does include provisions that exempt religious institutions, small businesses with fewer than 15 employees, and the U.S. military from adherence. All would be free to fire or refuse to hire LGBs based on their sexual orientation.

Unnamed officials speaking to an unnamed "family" organization doesn't lend much credence to the story. This could be a mere "man the barricades!" ploy by the right-wing, fearing ENDA's imminent passage. And of course, anything that LaBarbera says is almost guaranteed to be a lie. But in this case, let's hope he's right.

Labels: , , ,

comments powered by Disqus