HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania, August 16, 2005 ( – A Pennsylvania court has opened the door for men who believe they are women to come to work in a dress and to use the women’s restroom and shower facilities. The decision by the Commonwealth Court, which upheld a lower court ruling mandating that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” be added to the Allentown (Pennsylvania) human relations ordinance, is being decried as an “outrage” by a traditional values group.

According to the American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), this is not something that the majority of citizens in Allentown want and is additional evidence of judicial activism, as state law does not extend this type of special protection to homosexuals.

Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA in a release stated, “Gone unreported in media stories today are the acts of intimidation and harassment on the part of homosexual activists while concerned citizens in Allentown attempted to circulate and/or sign petitions the summer of 2002 after the City Council effectively pushed the ordinance changes through in April of that year…These concerned citizens simply wanted an opportunity to place the matter before all the voters in Allentown to see if the city council-approved language was what the people really wanted. Homosexual activists knew that if the people had a chance to vote the ordinance changes would be removed. I believe the majority of Allentown citizens still oppose the ordinance.”

In May 2003, Teamsters Union Local 773 forced Carbon County to reinstate a transgender prison guard because of Allentown’s addition of “gender identity” to its human relations ordinance. “This was a message to all those who do business with companies and organizations based in Allentown: Your business dealings will be directly affected by the addition of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to Allentown’s Human Relations Ordinance,” the AFA release explained. “Does the Carbon County prison still have a man dressed as a woman guard? How many strip searches of female inmates has he conducted?”

“The Commonwealth court ruling said cities have broad latitude to take steps to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens,” Gramley stated. “Extending special protections to homosexuals will not accomplish either as according to the CDC, 2 out of 3 cases of AIDS are men who have sex with men, 1out of 5 male homosexuals are victims of same-sex domestic violence and those involved in homosexual activity are more prone to substance abuse, eating and psychological disorders. This is not the direction a city would want to take to protect its citizens.”

“‘Gender Identity’ as defined in the ordinance opens all sorts of doors for radical transsexuals,” the AFA release continued. “Even openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank opposes such language because he knows so-called ‘transgender’ activists will use that language to literally demand that men who believe they’re women be allowed to use women’s restrooms and showers.”