". . . we cannot support a bill - such as ENDA in its current form - that would legally affirm and specially protect any sexual conduct outside of marriage."
I challenge the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to point out the exact language by virtue of which ENDA specially protects "sexual conduct."
They can't d it, because it's not there.
The fact is that ENDA will not protect employees on the basis of sexual conduct - sexual activity - on the job, regardless of sexual orientation. This law will not protect people who want to have sex, gay or straight, in the boardroom or in the supply closet, or for that matter, on top of a desk. So where's the "sexual conduct" that is supposed to be "legally affirmed and specially protected?"
Perhaps the Bishops are holding out - maybe they actually want ENDA amended to protect the on-the-job sexual predation of altar servers and Catholic schoolchildren by members of the Roman Catholic clergy? Sorry, but ENDA will not be amended to affirmatively protect any on-the-job sexual activity, not even the sexual activity of Roman Catholic clergy, no matter how much the Bishops hold their breath.
Let me repeat: ENDA will not protect conduct or sexual activity - it will protect people whose sexual orientation and gender identity is different from the sexual orientation or gender identity of other people, from discrimination in employment. There is no "condonation" of any sexual activity whatsoever involved in the bill, not sex between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a trans person with another adult, or sex among a group of people of the same or different orientations, inside or outside of marriage. It does not protect inappropriate sexual conduct at the office or workplace, even if the people engaging in it are married to each other
All ENDA does is remove sexual orientation (not sexual "conduct" and not sexual activity), and gender identity and expression, as criteria for hiring and firing. It does not allow a preference or special right for one sexual orientation or gender identity over another. Indeed, this bill is the polar opposite of protecting "special rights." (If the Catholic Bishops want an example of special rights, they need only look at their position on marriage - their advocacy for special rights for heterosexuals.)
In that regard, the bishops are as wrong about ENDA as their fearless leader, "Papa" Joe Ratzinger, has been about the Genesis story of Sodom and Gommorrah. (In 1986 he snarkily wrote that "everyone knows" what the story is about, and then used it as an example to condemn homosexuality rather than the real sodomite sin, which is the sort of intolerant bigotry that the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops exemplify in their opposition to ENDA).
The Catholic Bishops show, once again, that not only are they whited sepulchres like the Scribes and Pharisees described in the Gospels, they are also like the Men of Sodom as described in Genesis - intolerant of people who are different.
I've shaken their dust off my sandals years ago.
The Roman Catholic Bishops have an incredible amount of chutzpah, peddling lies about the language of the bill and distortions of their own teachings as a means to an end.
When they teach that a good end does not justify an evil means, are they trying to imply that an evil end (preventing the passage of ENDA) justifies an evil means (lying and deceit to get their way)?