worth-reading.comFeldblumâ€™s nomination as EEOC Commissioner should be rejected.
Chai Feldblum, the activist lawyer who has been nominated for a post on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC) just finished her testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor And Pensions Committee.
Traditional Values Coalition has been warning that Feldblumâ€™s confirmation to the EEOC will be a steppingstone to the U.S Supreme Court where she will have a lifetime appointment.
Proving our point, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) introduced Feldblum to the Committee. In his introduction of her, he laid the foundation with his description of her as having an â€œunsurpassed judicial temperamentâ€ --- an odd way to describe a non-judicial nominee.
I was at the hearing and listened to her deliberately lie and omit facts about her long-term support of a union of three or more individuals to Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA).
Back in 2006, Feldblum had signed on to the BeyondMarriage petition, that supported the sexual unions of more than two people â€“ in other words â€“ she indicated support for polyamory.
However, the day before her confirmation hearing, she knew she was in trouble. So, she issued a statement asking BeyondMarriage to remove her name â€“ three years after sheâ€™d signed it.
The Democrats also knew she was in trouble, so just to get her conveniently â€œchangedâ€ position on record, Sen. Harkin asked her a softball question about her signing of the Beyond Marriage petition.
At the hearing, Feldblum claimed it was a mistake for her to sign the statement. This BeyondMarriage statement is something most Americans would find wildly bizarre.
Feldblum is a cunning lawyer who now claims that she made a mistake by signing this statement. This is laughable. In 2006 she knew exactly what she was signing. What she did not know is that she would be nominated to a position requiring the Senate and American public to review her beliefs and track record. It was clear that BeyondMarriage was calling for multiple sex partnerships.
Harkin asked her if she supported â€œpolygamyâ€ â€“ which she denied. However, Harkin asked her the wrong question. He should have asked if she supported polyamory, which is a grouping of any numbers of individuals â€“ both male and female â€“ who are willing to engage in sex acts with each other or just live together. She has long supported polyamory.
Anyone who has read anything sheâ€™s ever written could tell that her answers at the hearing were a joke. She didnâ€™t answer anything fully or truthfully. She lied by omission.
Feldblum has written against traditional marriage as the fundamental unit of society and supports a variety of sex partners, for which she wants government support and approval. She also supports non-sexual partnerships given the same benefits as men and women who are in a monogamous marriage.
She has stated: â€œI, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution. I have moved away from the belief that marriage is clearly the best normative way to structure intimate relationshipsâ€¦â€
She â€œargues that cultural prescriptions enforcing monogamy obfuscate individual needs and impede self-identification, thereby interfering with real intimacy and satisfaction in love relationships.â€ (Feldblum, â€œRectifying The Tilt.â€)
In addition, Feldblum was asked a softball question about whether or not she supported religious freedom in the workplace. She claimed that she supports religious tolerance and says that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) contains a broader religious exemption language than does Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act.
She claimed that ENDA and Title 7 permit religious groups to hire those of their own faith, but provided no other details to her statement. What about religious schools? What about the Christian business owner who doesnâ€™t want to hire a cross-dresser? What jobs in a church are subject to Title 7 or ENDA if it passes? She avoided any discussion of these important religious freedom issues.
ENDA contains limited, useless â€œreligious exemptionâ€ language. TVCâ€™s research paper on ENDA explains why the religious exemption language in ENDA is useless and dangerous to religious liberty.
Feldblum was the primary author of ENDA and will ruthlessly enforce the gay political agenda if she serves on the EEOC.
In addition, Feldblum avoided telling the truth at this hearing about where she stands on religious freedom in the workplace. Sheâ€™s stated in various legal essays that she believes that when a religious person enters into commerce in America, he or she loses the right to exercise his/her religious beliefs when it comes to the hiring of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgendered persons.
According to Feldblum, when religious freedom clashes with the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) agenda, religious freedom should lose: â€œSexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.â€ (Maggie Gallagher, Weekly Standard, 2006).
Feldblum lied by omission to the Senate Committee members and avoided revealing her extremist views on marriage, polyamory and her rejection of the First Amendmentâ€™s guarantee of religious freedom for all Americans.
Feldblumâ€™s nomination as EEOC Commissioner should be rejected.