Stand up against rights that are wrong - Coeur d'Alene Press: My Turn

Stand up against rights that are wrong

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:00 am

This past Tuesday at noon the General Services Committee heard the presentation of both Tony Stewart and Christie Wood with the Human Rights Task Force as they proposed that the City of Coeur d'Alene adopt an anti-discrimination ordinance that would endorse the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender agenda. At the same meeting I gave the following 15 arguments. I wanted all of you to see these items before the City Council votes on the ordinance.

I would like to say that I do not believe Coeur d'Alene is a racist, bigoted, or homophobic city. Nor am I! I believe we should love all people equally and give the same respect due to every resident that we would like from others.

The proposed ordinance does not give equal rights to all. It protects the "so-called" rights of one group at the expense of others.

Here are a few points to consider:

1) Passing this ordinance will send a message to the city and the surrounding areas that we are or were a discriminating city.

Recently we were asked about our discrimination policies by the Western Orthopedic Association. President, Dr. Ellen Raney sent a letter this past April to Mayor Sandi Bloem asking for information that points to local efforts to promote the inclusion of racial and ethnic diversity. She successfully gained the opportunity to host the event without this newly proposed ordinance.

Our city has been successfully recovering from the reputation of being a racist community. Mayor Bloem told the Cd'A Press that she is grateful that stigma which North Idaho has been associated with has been overcome. She also added, "I feel grateful this community has taken a strong message against hate and bigotry."

The request for this ordinance will revive the national stigma associated with North Idaho.

2) This ordinance imposes upon the rights of one party or group in order to provide rights to another group or person, and therefore does not protect the rights of all people groups in Cd'A.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America protects religious freedom, and "...prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion," or "impeding the free exercise of religion..."

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." and in the "Due Process Clause," the United States Supreme Court in Meyer vs. Nebraska declared that United States citizens are free "to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Applied to the Christian for example, I would point out that Christians are not to be "unequally yoked" (2 Corinthians 6:14). This ordinance would force a violation of the Christian standard and conscience by forcing the Christian citizen to submit to a law requiring the employment of, or housing of persons of conflicting values. This is a violation of our Constitutional rights.

The proponents will suggest that the ordinance will protect "religious institutions", however, I will point out that it does not protect the rights of individual "religious" citizens.

3) This ordinance violates the religious freedom of individual citizens, from at minimum, the three major world religions causing those very citizens to violate their rights of conscience and good faith in their religious faith.

It is not the place of the State or City to force a morality - or immorality - upon society. There may come a day when another group, for instance, a religious group may come and demand that we enforce their "morality." For example: Islam and their Sharia Law.

4) This ordinance overlooks the Idaho Statute Title 18 (Crimes and Punishments), Chapter 66 (Sex Crimes 18-6605) that clearly states, "Every person who is guilty of the infamous crime against nature, committed with mankind or with any animal, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than five years."

This law has been supported and is in effect per the, "Idaho Statutes and Constitutions" updated to the web July 1 each year. This statute is current through the 2012 legislative session.

To define "against nature" I will cite Romans 1:26-27. It says, "God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful..."

According to the Idaho Supreme Court an "infamous crime against nature" is defined to include anal sex, and sex with an animal.

Although the United States Supreme Court in the 2003 case Lawrence vs. Texas struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states. This ruling does not mean that sodomy laws are gone. The law itself remains on the books in Idaho and is still used to enforce "infamous crimes against nature" related to bestiality, public homosexual sex, et al. The fact that the law itself remains as Idaho law is cause enough to disallow this proposed ordinance. It is in contradiction to Idaho law.

This week's Cd'A Press article about our own Sheriff's Department's discontinuation of support for their Boy Scout Troop highlights the hypocrisy of this ordinance. Will our city council endorse an ordinance that directly contradicts Idaho State law?

5) This ordinance creates the potential for more lawsuits, fines, and imprisonment, thus burdening the community, our court systems and incarceration facilities.

6) This ordinance will add additional burden to our law enforcement personnel and associated departments by requiring police enforcement of the ordinance.

7) This ordinance moves our city, and culture from so called toleration to endorsement of what is considered "against nature", and tears away at the traditional model of sexuality established from the foundations of the world, and that which is naturally understood by the procreative result of sexual union.

8) This ordinance moves the State of Idaho one step closer to endorsing same sex marriage. Marriage is and should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. This has been the model since the beginning of time.

9) This ordinance will bring unintended consequences that may provide serious health complications.

Example: A friend recently donated plasma and several of the health screening questions were intended to isolate behavior that might make one's plasma unusable. Questions included concerns about blood transfusions, drug use, and piercings within a certain period of time, contact with prostitutes, etc. One of the revealing questions was whether you had had any sexual contact with another man even once in the course of your life. In other words - that it is unhealthy and therefore a risky activity. Good science recognizes this. This ordinance could make it a crime to ask this or other questions and would be the cause of health concerns to others in the community.

10) This ordinance creates a defendable opportunity for pedophiles to prey on young children of the opposite sex.

Example: The ordinance's gender identity and gender expression language would allow men to be able to use a woman's restroom (and vise versa) in "public accommodations" based upon their subjective sense of whether they are male or female allowing for male pedophiles to have a defense for using a girl's bathroom. The security of locker rooms, dressing rooms, bathrooms and other separate facilities are all compromised.

The locker room issue became a problem in the Stephen to Stephanie trans-sexual case in the late 1990s at our own Cd'A Police Department.

11) This ordinance fails to apply the same standards of desired generosity and hospitality to groups outside the LGBT community that don't share the same lifestyle choices and convictions.

Are the members of the LGBT community willing to honor our convictions to the same extent they want us to honor theirs?

12) A threat has been made that should this ordinance fail to pass there would be severe national repercussions negatively affecting Coeur d'Alene. Does this suggest that those pushing for this ordinance will bully the city should the ordinance fail to pass?

13) The Idaho State Legislature has declined to consider a similar statewide measure for seven years in a row. Is there wisdom in understanding why the legislators have made this decision? The legislators have taken a stand to hold into law the "crimes against nature" statute.

14) This ordinance will polarize the community and will create an ongoing backlash.

15) This ordinance has or will cause those who are non-supportive of the ordinance to be seen as an enemy of kindness. Indirectly, this is a form of intimidation. None of those who are non-supportive want to be viewed this way. Therefore many are willing to go along to protect themselves from the intimidating repercussions. This should not be the product of this ordinance or its promotion!

I ask that you consider these points and speak up against this proposed ordinance. This ordinance does not protect the rights of all. It protects the rights of a few at the expense of others.

Submitted with love for every man, woman and child here in Coeur d'Alene and our surrounding cities.

Paul D. Van Noy is pastor of Candlelight Christian Fellowship and president of the Coeur d'Alene Ministerial Association.

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.


  • MMMMMM posted at 1:35 pm on Sun, Jun 23, 2013.

    MMMMMM Posts: 2749

    Hello, JesusTheLight, those laws might not get passed today, but they are still on the books! Of course just look at our law enforcement officers! I wonder how many of them are out there violating those laws - you know, adultereing and fornicating all over the place? hmmm

    Well, that poses another problem for law-enforcement. How would you charge someone with sodomy and yet charge the landlord for not renting to a sodomite?

    Please tell me, JesusTheLight, is there ANY Bible verse that would cover this situation?????

  • MMMMMM posted at 1:29 pm on Sun, Jun 23, 2013.

    MMMMMM Posts: 2749

    Is it illegal to ask a person if they are homosexual? So, how can you be sure about not discriminating - if you don't know in the first place?

  • Oma posted at 7:11 pm on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Oma Posts: 7

    This is not about Pastor Paul... and who he loves or doesn't love. It is about Jesus and His pure and perfect love. Although I agree with Pastor Paul this is bad law... it is not about him... Once you know and in your heart know that Jesus is Lord... not a liar or a lunatic... you don't want to sin... no matter the sin. You want to give up unhealthy things of the flesh... As a Christian Nation we need to realize just who God is... and in human flesh.. His sacrifice for us... out of His Love... So to divert the topic to attack someone who speaks God's truth from God's Holy Word... doesn't make the truth any less true..Just like the lies of the world don't become any less lies... We get to choose God gave us that ability to chose to believe or deny ... There are consequences either way you chose and God would never force Himself on you He wants you to come to Him freely no matter the sin you struggle with... The sexual sins he calls an abomination because they are sins against the individual... The Lord hurts for those that hurt. Seek the truth and you will find it... Ignore it and it will still be the truth...

  • Greg nene posted at 7:02 pm on Tue, Jun 4, 2013.

    Greg nene Posts: 20

    Oh geez, this guy again with his thinly veiled hate and bigotry. People can see right through his" I love everyone! And love the sinner, hate the sin" act. Perhaps Van Noy should preempt his homophobic, hate fueled rants with the real reason he has created an agenda against gays.

    I really appreciate Jmowreaders comments, they are so true. All this is , is prejudice and hate, covered in Christian sauce with a side of selective, out of context bible versus.

    It is sad that a man that has a voice amongst people, chooses to use that voice to spread his own personal hates, and fears, and prejudice.

  • Frankie posted at 2:20 pm on Sun, Jun 2, 2013.

    Frankie Posts: 14

    As usual, the Christian Right steps in with peace, love, and forgiveness for all. Yeah.
    This ordinance doesn't endorse anything. It simply prevents people from discriminating against someone because of sexual orientation. It doesn't endorse the lifestyle, it doesn't teach it, it just prevents discrimination.
    Isn't it odd? My atheist friends are kind, loving, forgiving and tolerant. The Christian Right is mean, vindictive, unforgiving, intolerant. Hmmmm.
    Reverent Butler's philosophy seems not to have died at all.

  • JesusIsTheLight posted at 9:34 pm on Sat, Jun 1, 2013.

    JesusIsTheLight Posts: 667

    See my post on the other my word....Langford's.

  • jmowreader posted at 6:49 pm on Sat, Jun 1, 2013.

    jmowreader Posts: 1495

    Try this three-step exercise, since this is in digital form and it'll be easy to do:

    Step 1: Copy all the text of Rev. Van Noy's article from here and paste it into your word processor. (If you don't have one, go to and download one that is both good and free.)

    Step 2: Do a search-and-replace, changing every instance of "homosexual" to "colored."

    Step 3: Take a long and hard moral inventory.

    The simple fact is, the things that hard-right Christians are saying about gays right now are the SAME things they were saying about African-Americans in the 1950s...they spread diseases, they spread moral turpitude, they can't control their sexual urges, they'll grab your children in the middle of the night... And in every case, all those things were proven wrong. (Oh, you'll love this one: the Army once said a black man couldn't fly a military aircraft because blacks couldn't see at night. True story. So far, the extreme right hasn't claimed gays have night blindness.) And some of the things they claim about gays are kinda weird: A few months ago, someone said we should be against gay rights because they practice "fisting." When I saw that, I thought, "do you even know what that is?"

    This kind of thinking was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Please stop.

  • fiepie posted at 9:53 am on Sat, Jun 1, 2013.

    fiepie Posts: 3062

    JILT...years ago I had some men working for me. One of them did not have a car or any means to get to the work site so I picked him up each morning.
    He lived with his fiancee (sp).
    One day some women from the church we attended came to our house and wanted to know why I employed this man who was living in sin.
    I went to our preacher as I didn't want to fire this man. I had not seen him doing any wrong with the job.
    I related the above to the preacher, he was sitting at his desk, he turned, looked up at me and asked if I had seen this man sleep or have sex with this woman whom he lived with.
    I said that I had never even been in his house.
    The preacher then asked me...why I was bringing gossip to him, unfounded accusations and who was I to try to embarass him or taint this man's reputation.

    There are many people in this world who live with others for whatever reason. Some live with persons of their same sex.
    Many times we refer to these as homosexuals without any knowledge of what they do in the privacy of their home.
    Who are we to judge them on their "behavior" without actual knowledge of what they do?

    Do you think that is against God's word?
    So if Mr. Pappas or anyone else is fighting for these people to have equal rights,whom may be more comfortable living with someone of their own gender, who are you or Mr. Van Noy or myself to to declare them sinful or un-Christian?

    And this takes us back to co-habitation. Is it a sin?

  • JesusIsTheLight posted at 11:21 am on Fri, May 31, 2013.

    JesusIsTheLight Posts: 667

    Fiepie, co-habitation would encompass adultery yes? Sex withouth marriage? If that is what you mean than yes, cohabitation would be considered a far as a church barring you Paul us if we know of a person that is sinning openly, willingly, habitually than they are to be either corrected or removed from the church. Now I don't know of any church that will literally say you can't come here, but they might say you can't be an official member and we are going to council you on what you are doing and why it's wrong.

    As far as laws against fornicators there is no way any laws like that would get passed today. We've fallen too far from God. And yes, one is as bad as the other if they are doing it habitually and without repentance. The thief is as bad as the sodomite...the drunkard, the prostitute, the liar, etc. But no one is making laws to protect them.

    Again I think your focus is misplaced. As far as guilt, we all deserve the same fate. Fortunately, Jesus saved us from that.

    And Mr. Pappas is pushing for the Party that glorifies sodomy, lesbianism, athiesm, abortion, adultery....will he go to He ll? I don't know. All I know is he isn't abiding in Jesus Christ.

  • fiepie posted at 10:41 am on Fri, May 31, 2013.

    fiepie Posts: 3062

    Whoops...sorry about that I mixed the two comments on this subject and I apologize to Mr. Van Noys and any others whom I might have confused.

  • fiepie posted at 10:37 am on Fri, May 31, 2013.

    fiepie Posts: 3062

    JITL...I have no problem believing that Mr. Van Noy may know more about the Bible than I but I have to wonder, as both fornication and homosexuality are mentioned in the same context, why is one wrong and the other untalked about?
    Is one a greater sin? Why is one allowed (fornicators) more rights than the other? This is meant to be answered in regards to our constitution and not our religious beliefs.
    Why is one group allowed in church (and surely you have some knowledge of families who just co-
    habitat rather than be married) and the other barred?

    On this thought...are those of us who do not speak out as fervently against fornicators as we do against homosexuals...promoting (the gist of this letter) a sinful act?
    Are we less guilty than Mr. Van Noys declared the Democratic party and Mr. Pappas?
    Appreciate your thoughts.

  • JesusIsTheLight posted at 9:41 am on Fri, May 31, 2013.

    JesusIsTheLight Posts: 667

    Miketeague you really have no understanding of the Bible, Friend.

  • Miketeague posted at 9:13 am on Fri, May 31, 2013.

    Miketeague Posts: 2631

    When will everyone understand that the bible written by men to control men does not rule this country? If a person makes what should be a personal choice to live by the bible then fine, just don’t try to force others to do the same. Why does a group need special laws, how long ago were signs like “blacks not allowed” prevalent? The constitution says all men (meaning everyone) are created equal, it would be a better world if everyone really believe that. Until then these “special laws” are required. What is everyone so afraid of? Is it the fear you might be tempted?

  • JesusIsTheLight posted at 8:21 am on Fri, May 31, 2013.

    JesusIsTheLight Posts: 667

    Fiepie I have a feeling he knows a bit more about the Bible than you do.

  • fiepie posted at 7:32 am on Fri, May 31, 2013.

    fiepie Posts: 3062

    While one can agree with the majority of what is stated in this letter, one has to wonder if Mr. Van Noy would consider co-habiting acceptable.
    We also know co-habiting as fornication.

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard