Same-Sex "Marriage" Faces Off Against Religion

[Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association Boardwalk Pavilion - Source of Dispute.]

This week New Jersey courts issued a preliminary ruling on Bernstein and Paster v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, the case of same-sex "marriage" v. religion. Guess who won? The lawsuit was initially brought against the Methodist church in order to strip its tax-exempt status and penalize it on the grounds of failure to comply with the public use clause of state-wide tax-exemption legalese. Now, however, it would seem that gay rights activists are taking advantage of this outrageous offensive to make more bold assertions and demands for legal reform and accommodation of those experiencing same-sex attractions. It appears that the slippery slope argument is not so much the logical fallacy that proponents of gay marriage would have the world believe.

From the Fox News online coverage of this story, I draw two revealing excerpts that present opinions held by gay rights advocates responding to this legal battle:

"Supporters of gay rights say the discrimination shows that New Jersey's two-year-old civil unions law falls short of its intent to give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples."

I was not aware that marriage ceremonies performed on private church property are "legal rights" for anyone. In fact, it is the church, not the individual or couple, whose right it is to act (or not act) in any manner they so choose as dictated by their federally protected religious convictions. That correction aside, I take issue with additional erroneous vocabulary lurking in this assertion. Civil unions have not been implemented in order to give gay couples "the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples." In truth, they have been adopted in order to give gay couples the same legal protections as heterosexual married couples. Protection from medical discrimination, protection from legal discrimination, etc. Heterosexual married couples do not have any need to be protected from religious organizations as marriage between one man and one woman is and always will be God's commandment. Why then, do homosexual couples feel they have some sort of twisted "right" to be protected from religion? Is that not inequality in their favor? And does it not set a dangerous precedent for the consideration of sexual orientation over religious liberty? Ours is a country which has, from its very inception, protected freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

"Earlier this month, a state commission headed by J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, the director of the Division on Civil Rights and the author of Monday's ruling, recommended that the state allow gay couples full marriage rights."

Yes, and this weighty recommendation glides into existence on the wings of faulty research practice for which the purely anecdotal data collection method regarding the supposed inequality of civil unions failed to illuminate even one case of inequality, thus forcing members of the commission to conclude that same-sex "marriage" should be adopted in New Jersey because civil unions are "not well understood." How interesting that this same Vespa-Papaleo, head of the cobweb-cluttered-cranium commission, has now authored a ruling that smacks of religious intolerance and subjugation. One might draw the conclusion that on JFVP's ideal horizon, same-sex marriage is not only placed at an equal standing with heterosexual marriage, but that religion is dropped down a tier or two in the shuffle.

~Pearl

Technorati Tags: Vespa-Papaleo,New Jersey,Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association,Religion,Same-Sex Marriage,Religious Liberty,Freedom,Subjugation,Gay Rights Agenda,Bernstein,Pester,Alliance Defense Fund

AZ Attorneys: Sexual Orientation Could Trump Religion

Blazing through the tradition news grapevine today is a story of sexual orientation v. right of conscience. The Arizona State Bar is currently considering making a change to the attorney oath of office that would exclude considerations of sexual orientation. The new addition would read as follows:

"I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or social standing to influence my duty of care."

In response to this questionable and, some say, unnecessary alteration, 31 Arizona attorneys have written letters to the State Bar President, Ed Novak. As reported at AZStarNet.com,

"Tim Casey, one of those unhappy with the proposal, said it raises all sorts of issues. At the very least, he said, the wording 'is so very vague it's scary.'"

Novak has responded to this critical speculation by assuring practicing and potential attorneys that the new addition to the oath will not require them to take on homosexual cases against their will, only to put away personal beliefs and views while attending to such cases.

Attorney Ronald Meyer countered,

"If that's the case, then the Bar's proposal is unnecessary. Meyer, one of the more senior attorneys who signed the letter, said existing ethical rules already spell out that attorneys must do their best for their clients."

[Read more at AZStarNet.]

Related Articles:

Spanish Judge Disbarred for "Homophobia"

Technorati Tags: AZ,Arizona,Attorney,Arizona State Bar,Bar Association,Religion,Law,Sexual Orientation,Right of Conscience,Homosexuality

Vegas Blacklist: Finally Calling Apples Apples

In a surprise turn, gay rights activists in Nevada have released the Anti-Gay Las Vegas Blacklist; finally calling apples apples in their continued witch hunt for those who support traditional marriage. However, while they have now accurately dubbed their outing of individuals and businesses a blacklist, they still have far to come in their understanding of this divisive issue. Instead of accurately portraying these blacklisted individuals and businesses as supporters of traditional marriage, they call them anti-gay (anti-gayvegas.com) and claim that they "have publiclly suported inequality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people in either their business practices or political support."


I've said it many times before and I'll say it again; those who support traditional marriage are not anti-gay, just anti-gay marriage. There is a world of difference between those two mindsets that gay rights activists are not willing to acknowledge or address for fear that it will lose them sympathy in their fight for supposed "equality."

If you scroll down to the bottom of the Las Vegas Blacklist, you will find a number of interesting tidbits. First, I came across this ultimatum, "Want to get off the Blacklist? Publiclly declare your support for LGBT equality." It is chillingly reminiscent of Marc Gunther's recent statement that, “… silence or neutrality is unacceptable… Either you’re for us or against us…” I am all for gay rights. I don't believe homosexuals should be forced out of an ambulance when an injured partner is taken to the hospital; I don't believe they should be excluded from inheritances because of their sexual orientation. I even believe we could move toward better legislation for working out federal tax inequalities to bring domestic partnerships the full benefits that they are currently attempting to gain by procuring the word marriage. But marriage is not a right to be assigned at will to any who seek its defintion based on love and affection. Marriage is, and always has been, the fundamental unit of society for the raising up of healthy, well-rounded children; and research has shown that no couple can create this ideal environment better than a man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony. So why, then, would we as a society be so brash as to redefine that essential union? The answer to that loaded question could be another post entirely. For now I will leave it up to you to mull it over.

Also at the bottom of the Las Vegas Blacklist homepage is a tiny poll asking "Should politicians such as Barack Obama and Harry Reid be listed on the Blacklist for opposing gay marriage?" Currently the poll stands at 59% Yes and 41% No; an interesting result considering the likely audience of such a site. The word fickle comes to mind.

Feeling the Hate of Prop 8

Governor Schwarzenegger, MAN UP!
by Jen Shroder

The backlash continues to roar in California as gay activists continue to silence opposition while waiting for the Calif. Supreme Court to weigh in on Prop 8. The Mormon Church and Chuck Norris are feeling the heat while Linda Harvey receives threats. A Houston lawyer "who brazenly identified himself," wrote, "You are very much being watched! All you jeebus-lovin-christers rights will slowly be taken away one by one the more you try to press your beliefs down our throats. "

An elderly woman is swarmed, her cross ripped out of her hand and stomped on while the news anchor, Kris Long, reports "...There is a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

Margie Christoffersen donated a mere $100 to Prop 8, riots broke out at her restaurant, now her life and business is in turmoil. An LA Film Festival director has been drummed out of the business for donating.

Reports stream in. Michelle Malkin writes of a Christian group being surrounded and sexually molested by gay activists for standing on a street corner.

[Read more...]

Campbell's Soup Fiasco

Who knew that Campbell's Soup's possibilities included undermining the traditional family unit by advertising Lesbian moms as a family "structure?"  Yeah.  Not me.  But, it's there in The Advocate nonetheless - a brilliant, gleaming, full-page ad depicting two Lesbian partners and their child being blessed by the sampling of Campbell's Soup.

So many turning their backs on tradition, getting caught up in the burning passion of acceptance, inclusion, and popularity.  It's amazing what can happen in the name of "progressiveness."

Read more about it here....

Attorney General Jerry Brown, AKA Fish-Out-Of-Water

"A flip-flop, flippty-flip-flip-flop you don’t stop…" says a community commenter at Michelle Malkin's blog.  The little ditty accurately describes the shenanigans taking place at the Attorney General's office.

Jerry Brown, CA Attorney General, came gallantly to the defense of the people's Prop 8 vote immediately following the November 4th elections, vowing to uphold the constitutional amendment against his own personal beliefs.  Now, however, in a perhaps-not-so-surprising turn of events, Brown has renounced his supportive position and fallen in with gay rights activists' "rainbow-love-change-civil rights-freedom" mantra, claiming that the amendment was "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty."  RIP, Jerry Brown, RIP. 

Most outrageous is this quote from Brown himself that claims his change of heart was brought about by, "further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution."  It is my humble opinion that the astute and capable Jerry Brown, would undoubtedly already be quite versed in Proposition 8 and every aspect of its Constitutional repercussions; he is the Attorney General, after all.

Pearl opines:

How to win a 2010 governor's chair?  Jump ship on Proposition 8 in order to win popularity with the up-and-coming, "enlightened and progressive," young CA voter pool.

But really, can we really blame JB for being more afraid of the gay rights activists' reactions should Prop 8 be upheld than the traditional marriage supporters' reactions should Prop 8 be overturned?  Hm?  The answer is no, not if you've been following the blazing trail of GRA hate visible from outer space.

On a more positive note, joining the Yes on 8 legal defense team is the esteemed Kenneth Starr, Dean of Pepperdine University Law School, former US Court of Appeals Judge, DC Circuit, and former US Solicitor General who has argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court.

Durex's Prompt & Evasive Response...

...still fails to address the issue of children and their beloved Christmas icon handing out sex paraphernalia.

Durex,

Your dispersal of condoms by Santas in Toronto is despicable.  If you wish to pull a stunt like this, at least you could have the decency to use a mascot not so beloved by children.  I have already blogged about this and will be sure to pass the information along to my friends and family.

Pearl

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Pearl,

Thank you for writing to us with your concerns about the Toronto condom sampling event.

The essence of the program was to communicate a serious message in a more light-hearted way that never loses sight of the importance of condom usage. [Just loses sight of the forgotten, impressionable child audience watching Santa disperse condoms]. Through ongoing global research, Durex knows that 47% of adults globally have unprotected sex without knowing a partner’s history and believes that communication about sex and condom use needs to be targeted at people in ways that will have an impact. [It certainly did have an impact....] Overall, people are not as interested in a heavy message.  In this case, Durex has taken a serious message, which is more likely to be appreciated when combined with humor.

All of us seemingly get bombarded with suggestive and often irresponsible messages in movies, TV and on-line mediums. [Hm. Sounds like they're admitting that their Santa stunt was suggestive and irresponsible but justified by the twisted reasoning that those messages are a fact of life?].  The effort in Toronto was intended to be associated with secular aspects of the holiday season only [I didn't know sex was considered an "aspect of the holiday season"], and there was no intention to involve or offend any religious beliefs. [My letter to them said nothing about religion - only children - whom they still have not addressed in this response].  It was meant to be thought provoking and invoke reactions regarding the importance of condom usage.  All of our products instruct users on the proper use of each product and about the potential risks of unprotected sex.

Thank you for choosing Durex® products.

Best regards,

Durex® Consumer Relations

Santa Handing Out Condoms, Pt. 1

Contact Durex

Santas Handing Out Condoms. Gift Certificates for Abortions.

Say what?!

Come again?!

Yeah, you read that right....

Santas Hand Out Condoms During Pre-Christmas Rush on Toronto’s Busiest Streets

By John Jalsevac

December 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Christmas shoppers were shocked this week to find men and women dressed up as Santa Claus on some of the busiest streets in Toronto, handing out condoms.

The publicity stunt was arranged by Durex, the condom manufacturer.

A press release from the company explained that costumed representatives, dressed as Santa Claus, would be handing out the condoms beginning on Tuesday, December 16.

“This holiday season, Durex(R) wants lovers to really feel the Love,” says the release. “Helping Canadians get in the mood to wrap their packages, Durex and Santa will start celebrating the holidays by handing out Love condoms this Tuesday, December 16, 2008 in downtown Toronto. Giving never felt so good!”

“It’s deeply saddening to me that at one of the most sacred times of the year, Durex would do such a thing,” said Suresh Dominic of Campaign Life Catholic in response to the publicity stunt.

...

The condom manufacturer is not the only organization that is hijacking Christmas to spread a message of casual sex. Planned Parenthood also recently made the news by offering gift certificates that can be redeemed for everything from contraceptives and sexually transmitted disease testing to abortions.

[More....]

"There's sex, and then there's Durex."

Can someone please tell me when we stopped thinking about children? When our own selfish desires took precedence over everything and everyone else? Have sex! That's what Christmas is all about, right? Wrong. Then it would be Sexmas, not Christmas. If you want to hand out condoms at Christmas in the name of "spreading the love," then create your own mascot to do your dirty work rather than appropriate the one whose image is so dear to children. I know, how about a walking penis? Oh right, then everyone would avert their children's eyes and run away, kind of like how they want to react to these Condom Santas. But they can't, you know why? Because then a kid is going to want to know why his mommy is running away from Santa; and mom, fidgeting uncomfortably, will wonder why she has to choose between teaching morality and preserving Christmas magic. And FYI, true love is commitment, not casual sex performed with a condom you picked up from Santa the week before Christmas. This is just despicable.

Here's the Durex contact info. Whether you write to them or send them a message via their website, just tell them how wrong this is. Please. Because...it is. It truly is.

Durex

Anti-Gay Marriage Amendments Spark Distress Among GLBT

"WASHINGTON – Amendments that restrict civil marriage rights of same-sex couples – such as Proposition 8 that recently passed in California – have led to higher levels of stress and anxiety among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults, as well as among their families of origin, according to several new studies to be published by the American Psychological Association."

The studies go on to reveal that not only do homosexuals feel higher levels of distress, but family members and friends and acquaintances too. Every now and then I read an article or research study that leaves me scratching my head in complete bewilderment. This is one such article. Did it really require three full-fledged research studies to come to this conclusion? Was it really necessary to expend all that time and energy to produce findings that any layman could have predicted? And what did they really hope to gain by publishing these results? If the desired outcome is to appeal to the collective public's sense of compassion, then truly they need look no further than the hundreds of thousands of religious and non-religious, concerned citizens who voted for traditional marriage. They are not anti-gay, just anti-gay marriage. And any number of them would readily open their arms wide to embrace a weary homosexual who is experiencing distress and anxiety from one of life's many upsets and disappointments.

Or maybe these research conclusions demand that politicians and legislators and informed citizens everywhere weep, gnash their teeth, rend their clothing, and vow never again to bring any type of protective legislation before the greater American society in order to spare the tender feelings of the homosexual community.

"'This information is especially timely, as we see the emotionally charged reactions from GLBT people in the wake of the Proposition 8 passage in California,' said Brent Mallinckrodt, Ph.D. editor of the Journal of Counseling Psychology. 'Psychologists serving GLBT clients and their families need to be aware of the real impact of these political forces on the everyday lives of the people most directly affected.'"

Whatever the desired outcome, it is painfully transparent that this article (though, I allow, not necessarily these research studies) does a superb job of securing a patent for victimization for homosexuals and excusing them from personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to post-anti-same-sex-marriage amendment reactions. Here are some participants' feelings toward anti-GLBT marriage legislation and my interjections (in brackets) of equivalent (and now supported) fears belonging to the heterosexual community:

"Participants reported feeling not just alienated from their communities, but fearful that they would lose their children [Christoffersen, Raddon, & Eckern lose jobs over Prop 8], that they would become victims of anti-gay violence [Anti-religious violence directed at Mormon and Catholic churches] or that they would need to move to a more accepting community. Some of these anxieties were mitigated by social support [It's difficult to hear heterosexual support amidst all this homosexual ruckus due to the main stream media bias ensuring that society never hears about the need for support]."

"For instance, one interviewee said he became 'petrified …of being raped or roughed up or killed, you know, for doing nothing, basically. I worry about being picked out as a gay guy because my mannerisms are not entirely masculine' [Yet it's the pro-traditional marriage teens in high school who are being picked on and heckled and ostracized for their beliefs; and young Christian adults being fondled and grabbed at and whistled to as they were escorted by police out of Castro and to their vehicle]. Another said the marriage amendment supporters were using the Bible 'like a brick on us. They are beating us with it' [Since when was citing religious beliefs, 'beating' someone with a Bible? Ironically, it was a gay man in the Castro district who literally beat a Christian girl over the head with a Bible, 'At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said 'Hey, that's not yours, can you please give it back?' He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her.']."

"Social support from religious institutions, families, GLBT friends and heterosexual allies led most of the participants 'to greater feelings of safety, happiness and strength,' the researchers wrote [Duh]."

In the end, no matter the intended reaction to these research studies, the evidence remains that when we couple APA-enabled victimization with society-enabled entitlement, and throw a good old-fashioned marriage amendment in the mix, we learn that "hell hath no fury like a [homosexual agenda thwarted by democracy]." This is evidenced by the ranting, raving, extremely emotionally-driven arguments being postured in defense of gay marriage of late.

Permissive Laws, Permissive Behaviour

Dr. Trayce Hansen, licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, compiled an overview of various comprehensive research studies performed regarding the genetic v. environmental debate surrounding homosexuality.

Permissive Laws, Permissive Behaviour

Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.

A closer look at the research

Twin study investigations of homosexuality were recently conducted in both Sweden and Finland. Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (ie, identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100 percent of the time because identical twins share 100 percent of their genes.

But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10 percent or 11 percent of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.

A Danish research investigation studied two million adults living in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. This study uncovered a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability an individual will seek a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex partner for marriage.

For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.

For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.

...

Finally, an American research study—the most comprehensive and representative survey of sexual behavior in America—reported its findings concerning homosexuality. The results of this study also support an environmental theory of homosexuality, not a genetic one. In particular, this survey identified specific types of environments that increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior. The authors describe these environments as "congenial" to the development of homosexuality.

For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages. The authors offer the following possibility: "an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior." Note the word "elicit." These researchers believe that growing up in a more pro-homosexual region may evoke or draw out homosexual behavior in young men. The implication is that some homosexual men who were reared in urban centers would not have become homosexual if reared in non-urban centers. The authors explain, "the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways."

This map of the CA Prop 8 results would seem to support the "urban influence" findings.

For American women, the environmental factor most associated with a homosexual or bisexual identity was a higher level of education. And though that was also true for men, the pattern for women was more dramatic. For instance, a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma.

For more information about the college education influence on homosexual determination, click here.

To read the entire Trayce Hansen research compilation with reference and source citation, click here.

The Marketing of Evil

From another member of the DNA (Digital Network Army), comes a tip about a book that I will most definitely buy, devour, and promote, because I wholeheartedly agree with the very premise upon which it is written: that while the freedom-and-rights gift-wrap is beautiful and enticing, homosexuality is, at its very core, evil.

The Marketing of Evil, by veteran journalist David Kupelian.

"The Marketing of Evil" reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value.  Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America's founding regarded as grossly self-destructive - in a word, evil.

Digital Network Army - Join the Fight to Preserve Families Today!

From Kingfisher Column :

DNA
Digital Network Army

So, the gay rights activists want to wage war on democracy? Well, it looks like they'll have to defeat a very dedicated defense. Check out our new teammates' website (www.digitalnetworkarmy.com) that debuted today, enlist to become a traditional marriage soldier, and pass along the good word of grassroots unity by grabbing a badge for your own site. As a member of this fantastic organization of ground troops, you will get regular emails from enthusiastic DNA Team Captains letting you know where your web time is needed most and will be most effective. Whether you like to blog, comment, write to political figures, sign petitions, submit essays, or just educate yourself on current marriage happenings, there is something for everyone.

Are you on Facebook? Join the DNA Facebook Group , too.

DNA Badge HTML Codes

To use, just copy and paste this code into a new html/javascript gadget found in your blog "page elements" under the layout tab. If you use wordpress then just put the html code in a text widget. For other blog formats... well, just put the html wherever your blog lets you put html for your sidebar. Maybe someone with another type of blog platform will comment with some advice for you "other people."

Large:

<a href="http://www.digitalnetworkarmy.com/"><img src="http://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp287/digitalnetworkarmy/DNA_logo21.jpg"></a>

Small:

<a href="http://www.digitalnetworkarmy.com/"><img src="http://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp287/digitalnetworkarmy/DNA_logo21-1.jpg"></a>

I'm in Love With Traditional Marriage

Oh too funny.  Ha hahaaa hahahha!  Saw this at the Kingfisher Column.

Defending Your Support of Prop 8

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 12:29:05 PM

Are you being criticized for your support of Prop 8?  Maybe friends, family, bosses, customers, coworkers, social networking contacts, bloggers, and commenters have lashed out at you or pressured you?  Maybe you have received angry calls from strangers that you perceived as threatening bodily harm to you, but in retrospect, you realize that the person calling you willingly subjects himself to the described treatment for jollies?

Well, I think I have a solution.

Feel free to copy and paste this defense I am providing below.  You don’t even have to give me credit.  Just be sure to modify it so your critic's name appears in the salutation.  Modify as necessary to be relevant to your circumstances.

============
Dear [insert name of your critic here],

I know you are upset with me.  Perhaps I can get you to understand why I supported Prop 8.

You see, from an early age, I have felt something deep inside me.  I knew I was different from a lot of other kids around me.  I thought maybe I was the only one who had these feelings.  I felt shame and self-loathing.

But as I got older, I found out that I wasn’t the only one.

You see, I am sexually attracted to supporting marriage amendments.

Now, I thought maybe I just needed the right experience with judicial tyranny.  That if I had a good experience with judicial tyranny, I could live happily ever after with letting judges tell me what to do, changing the meaning of words, invalidating my vote, and making me give things to other people even though I don’t want to.

But I couldn't deny the truth.  I tried.  I tried to conform to what those judges wanted.  I tried to listen to my Hollywood idols, my lesbian pastor, my college professor, my hippie parents- who all said that Prop 8 was wrong and would rot my brain.  Still, I found myself keeping the official voter pamphlet under my mattress, and sneaking peaks at the text of Prop 8.  It was so short, so simple, but it was enough to turn me on.  I couldn't sneak around anymore.  I couldn’t live a lie.

Bells went off when I donated money or time or my words or expertise to supporting the passage of a marriage amendment.  In pulling that lever to support Proposition 8, I felt true love.  I felt so happy and free.  I was so alive!

I had come to grips with my sexual orientation.  I am attracted to supporting marriage amendments.

I know that’s not what you wanted to hear.  I didn’t choose to feel this way.  It is how I've always felt.  And since it is my sexual orientation, you have to respect that and allow me to do whatever I need to do to find fulfillment of my desires.  You may find it repulsive or disgusting, or dysfunctional or irrational or just plain wrong.  But please don't judge me or hate me for being who I am.  Perhaps you can get over your Eightophobia by attending meetings of Parents and Friends of Marriage Amendment Supporters?  That would mean so much to me.  If you'd like, I can send over a new book for your kids to read that will help them deal with this: My Uncle Likes Supporting Traditional Marriage.. a Lot.  It is a pop-up book.

Thank you for your understanding and acceptance.  I know that, since this is my sexual orientation, you have to support me in how I feel and can’t criticize me for doing anything that I say is a result of my sexual orientation, nor deny me anything that I say I need because of my sexual orientation.  After all, it is all about love and happiness.

That is why I supported Prop 8.  I had to be true to myself.

Thanks again!

British ASA Censors Religion

And so it begins.  Religion experiences a very real taste of discrimination today as the stories of censorship in Great Britain are passed along the wire.

BELFAST, December 9, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has issued a decree banning an advertising campaign by a Presbyterian church entitled "The Word of God against Sodomy," which communicates the Bible's condemnation of homosexual behavior.

The advertisement descried the lewd gestures and inappropriate and offensive behavior that had been prevalent in 2007's "gay pride" march in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

"According to the church, marchers carried signs insulting Christ and exposed their genitals to those protesting the march that year."

The most damning information in this article is the admission from the ASA:

The ASA reportedly admitted that the ad was "representative of the beliefs of a specific group and indicative of their opinion only," but said that the text went "further than the majority of readers were likely to find acceptable."

And yet, they failed to allow the "majority of readers" to decide that for themselves.  Instead, they effected blatant censorship due to "complaints filed anonymously."

Three cheers for Reverend David McIlveen of the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church who responded boldly:

"It has never been our intention to deliberately offend anyone, but we cannot deny that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ will by its very nature be a source of offence to those who rebel against its message and in turn despise its messengers."

[Read more...]

Studly King Arthur - Defender of Truth; Defender of Tradition.

Last night I tortured my husband during our movie night on account of the fact that we had unknowingly chosen a movie that was right up the marriage defense ally. So the movie went something like this: pause, scribble scribble, play...pause, scribble scribble, play. I took notes religiously (pun intended).

First Knight is the Hollywood version of the King Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot story. I truly despise the Guinevere/Lancelot part of this tale. It disgusts me that two adults can't seem to exercise enough self-control to preserve the sanctity of marriage especially when they had so many opportunities to pursue their relationship prior to the marriage of Gwen to King Arthur. But, I digress.

The true hero of this epic tale is the noble King Arthur - defender of right, truth, and light. His nemesis, Malagant, is the complete antithesis, a vile man bent on defeating right, truth, and light. Once a knight of the round table, brother to King Arthur, Malagant's break from light produced devastating consequences for the innocent villagers and children across the border from his land. In his desire for conquest and rule, he brutally ended the lives and trampled the freedoms of many.

So, Malagant goes for the gold when he sets his sights on acquiring Camelot for his own; and his brilliant plan is to triumph through theft and coercion. You see, Arthur's heart belongs to the beautiful Guinevere and Malagant knows that by manipulating or capturing her, he will strike a heavy blow to Arthur's Achilles heel and hold in his possession the most coveted bargaining chip.

In short, Guinevere refuses to sign Malagant's so-called "fair" treaty, denying him power in her native Lionesse. Arthur invites him to come to Camelot to discuss the issue. Here is the transcript of their conversation. What strikes me is the glaringly obvious parallels between Malagant's faulty logic and bravado and the gay rights movement's similar conduct and outcry.

GRA = Gay Rights Activists

Arthur opens his council with a prayer:

"May God grant us the wisdom to discover the right,

The will to choose it,

And the strength to make it endure. Amen."

Malagant [with petulance]: "Other people live by other laws, Arthur. Or is the law of Camelot to rule the entire world?"

(GRA - Why do we have to be "subjected" to your beliefs?)

Arthur [with authority]: "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. Either what we hold to be right and good and true IS right and good and true for all mankind under God, or we're just another robber tribe."

Malagant [threatening]: "Your fine words are talking you out of peace and into war."

(GRA - You're going to get what you deserve. We take no responsibility for our actions if you continue to deny us our supposed "rights").

Arthur [with conviction]: "There's a peace that's only to be found on the other side of war. If that battle must come, I will fight it!"

Knights of the Round Table [with loyalty]: "And I! And I! And I! And I!...."

Defenders of Traditional Marriage and Family [with urgency and conviction]:

Pearl - "And I!"

Beetle - "And I!"

Pomegranate - "And I!"

California Crusader - "And I!"

Kingfisher - "And I!"

Preserving Marriage - "And I!"

Journalista - "And I"

Standing for Truth - "And I"

Make My Vote Count - "And I"

A Shepherd's Voice - "And I"

Protect Biblical Marriage - "And I"

Article VI Blog - "And I"

(and the list could go on and on)

Malagant [with derision]: "The great Arthur and his great dream. No dream lasts forever."

[Discontented Malagant stomps off]

When he isn't promptly delivered what he wants on a silver platter, Malagant plots to take it by force (GRA - If the people of California won't give us what we want, we'll just rant and rave and throw the ultimate tantrum until they are intimidated and cowed into concession). He kidnaps something precious to Arthur (Guinevere) and in a show of ultimate contempt and disrespect, he strips it of its decency and modesty then mocks its very core (GRA - Defacing temples with graffiti, attacking innocent people, threatening, intimidating, etc.).

Lancelot saves Guinevere and returns her to Arthur.

Relentless in his hunger for authority and sovereignty, Malagant violently seizes Lionesse, drawing Arthur to defend the terrorized nation. When Arthur out-maneuvers him and his plan fails miserably, the petulant Malagant then meets Arthur on his own turf, infiltrating the great city of Camelot and surrounding citizens during the public hearing of adulterous Lancelot and Guinevere.

The pinnacle of this tale is achieved when Malagant and Arthur meet face to face, with Arthur clearly outnumbered and bested. The ensuing dialogue between the two leaders - one clearly right and the other clearly wrong - is so absolutely in sync with our times and our struggles against those forces who would promote practices that will ultimately destroy the fundamental and essential family unit.

Malagant [accusatory]: "The strong rule the weak; that's how your God made the world."

Arthur [patient]: "God makes us strong only for a while so that we can help each other."

Malagant [scornfully and forcefully]: "My God makes me strong so I CAN LIVE MY LIFE."

Malagant [speaking to the people]: "Arthur says to you, 'serve one another.' Well when are you going to start living for yourselves? Now THIS is the freedom I bring you. Freedom from Arthur's tyrannical dream. Freedom from Arthur's tyrannical law. FREEDOM FROM ARTHUR'S TYRANNICAL GOD!"

Malagant [speaking to Arthur again; demanding]: "I want your people to see you kneel before me, hero. Kneel before me, or die."

(GRA - We will accept nothing less than complete and total acceptance of our lifestyle, or else....)

Arthur dies entreating his people to never surrender to domination and forced submission; to fight to the death for right and freedom.

And so I will. I will fight as long as I have my voice: fight for my freedom of religion, fight to protect family and marriage and society, fight for the innocence of my children.

Dang Those White, Religious, Old, Poor People!

Okay, okay.  I know I just posted, but I can't help myself.  I've been reading this poll that was released by the Public Policy Institute of California on blogs here and there.  Tonight I took the time to actually read an entire article about it and it made me laugh.  That's probably due, in part, to the clear bias of the writer, Justin Ewers.  I mean, he is entitled to his opinion, but then I hope he is an opinion columnist and not a news reporter.  Anyway, here's a note to self - the publication of Justin Ewers' very biased opinion is more evidence of the extremely conspicuous MSM slant. Don't believe me?  Read this excerpt from this same article we're about to discuss:

"Some observers found it ironic that while an African-American was finally winning the presidency, his strongest supporters appeared to be torpedoing the rights of another historically persecuted minority group. 'It was the black vote that voted down gay marriage,' Bill O'Reilly said almost gleefully on Fox News." 

So, back to the Perpetrator Poll.  Well ... read first and I'll meet you on the other side of this segment:

"The poll released today by the Public Policy Institute of California, though, finds that Prop 8's strongest support came not from African-Americans but from white conservatives, born-again Christians, and low-income voters. Party affiliation, age, and religion played a far greater role in determining the measure's final outcome than race, the poll finds. More than 3 in 4 Republicans voted to ban same-sex marriage in the state, as did 85 percent of evangelical voters. Only 43 percent of all voters between the ages of 18 and 34 supported the ban, while 56 percent of those over 55 did.

Voters on the coast generally supported same-sex marriage and the more culturally conservative inland areas of the state voted against it, but ultimately it was income and education—much more than race—that determined voters' preferences. While only 43 percent of college graduates voted to ban gay marriage, 69 percent of voters with a high school degree or less voted for the proposition. Nearly 2 in 3 voters making less than $40,000 a year voted for Prop 8, while 55 percent of those making $80,000 or more voted against it."

So, what's the underlying message J-dawg wishes to convey?  Is it, "Hooray for violent protests against religions!  We were right!  Spray paint away, troops!"?  Or perhaps it is, "Screw the old people. They're so dense and backward.  They wouldn't know civil rights if they were hit over the head with them."  (Let's just forget that they were the ones who actually lived during the real deal, the Black Civil Rights Movement).  Or, better yet, maybe Ewers is loving this "uneducated people voted for Prop 8" angle. Pshaw.  As if level of education is equivalent to or indicative of intelligence.  Sorry, no can equate, good buddy.  Not in this country.  Let me remind you that we have the poorest excuse for an education system, so don't tell me that a high school diploma as opposed to a college degree is any indication of lack of intelligence.  Accusations of that sort, be they overt or embedded, are pure stupidity. Here are a few names of little ol' uneducated people to jog your memory.  All of these humble folk either didn't go to college or dropped out before they graduated.  And yet, their unintelligence (by your standards, Mr. Newsman) has earned them more money than you can prossibly dream of. Here are your stupid smart people, Justin-tolerant:

Mary Kay Ash

Richard Branson

Coco Chanel

Simon Cowell

Michael Dell

Barry Diller

Walt Disney

Debbie Fields

Henry Ford

Bill Gates

Milton Hershey

Steve Jobs

Rachael Ray

Ty Warner

Frank Lloyd Wright

Sheesh!  There sure are a lot of stupid millionaires.  But, since we really can't make a valid case for the education factor, let's move on from dumb people and pick apart poor people.  These humble tyrants must be the real perpetrators.  Dang poor people.  Ah, well, we'd better not protest at soup kitchens, that would look really bad for our cause.  So, let's stick with the Mormons and we'll just sneakily boycott and blacklist the heck out of the wicked and intolerant poor people on the side. Just as an aside here, I think it's a fair assumption that a large portion of those same poor people gave of their money to support Proposition 8 (considering a staggering $36 million was raised for the Yes on 8 campaign).  I find it commendable that these people who are struggling to survive on a meager income are willing to part with precious money in order to protect a sacred tradition and institution.  I find it far less commendable when a high profile Hollywood star throws $1 million at a cause that would eventually lead to the disintegration of the family definition best equipped to provide children with the safest, most nurturing, and least confused life.

So, since the religious angle is bigoted, and the uneducated angle got an F, and the poor angle didn't make cents (pun intended), how about pick on the old people for supporting Proposition 8? This just makes me sad.  My Granny and Grandpa lived with us throughout my adolescence. The America I grew up in held the elderly in the highest regard.  They were not treated with scorn and derision and neglected the way they are today.  The aged are wise for a very good reason, they've lived longer than the rest of us and have seen more than the rest of us.  We would do well to live by the guidance of our elders. Instead we are quick to discount them because they can't figure out e-mail and they tell the same jokes over and over and they sometimes have bad breath and need more help than makes us comfortable.  We are a very messed up society indeed if we put more stock in the rantings and ravings of young adults than we do in the quiet conviction of our wise elders.

Ah, 'tis a twisted world we live in.  And let's not forget that it is the meek and humble who, after enduring unthinkable persecution from the wicked, will inherit the earth.  Oh, but wait, that's a religious reference.  I'm not allowed to use scripture to support my beliefs.  I forget.  Religion has been overruled by the great, demanding secular church whose gospel is one of self-gratification and scorn for believers.

So, I thank the Public Policy Institute of California for illuminating the comforting fact that gay marriage supporters are largely secular, young, rich people.  That definitely boosts my confidence in gay marriage. Not.

Evangelicals, Mob Veto, & Prop 8 Musical Reactions

So, I'm still here.  I've just been playing copy cat lately.  My new favorite site, Kingfisher Column, has apparently been hard at work boosting its visibility and I've been following suit, thus all the new buttons on my sidebar.  (Vote for me!)

But, this new fascination aside, I've still been keeping tabs on the SSM scene and here's what's caught my eye today:

Evangelicals Carried Prop 8

["Nearly one of every four Californians who voted last month describe themselves as evangelicals or born-again Christians, and their overwhelming support for Proposition 8 was a key reason the ban on same-sex marriage was approved at the polls.

That is among the findings of a post-election survey of California voters released today by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

The survey found that 84 percent of self-described evangelicals or born-again Christians supported Proposition 8. Those voters represented 24 percent of the electorate."]

*

*

This full page ad appeared in the New York Times today.  It makes my heart sing that someone was willing to spend that kind of money to report this travesty in a paper that should have been all over it with their own news reporters and editorials. 

*

*

Prop 8 - The Musical drew quite a bit of negative reaction, and rightfully so.  The little ditty was way off-target and extremely offensive.  Besides that, Mark Steyn makes a good point in his summary of the tasteless theatrical:

[If every single Mormon in California had voted for Prop 8, it would have been overwhelmingly defeated. Instead, it passed - in part because of Obama’s coat-tails: He drew a large black turnout, and regrettably for Mr. Shaiman the majority of those blacks voted ”anti-gay”. What, no “Ol’ Man River” parodies about homophobic stevedores?

How about the Hispanics? “Ev’rything’s Straight In A-me-ric-ca!” And, if it’s religious intolerance you want to take a swipe at, where’s the big dance number set at the Oakland Halal butchers?

Ah, but then you might get a more motivated crowd waiting at the stage door, right?]

"Prop 8 - The Musical" - Starring Jack Black, Margaret Cho, & John C. Reilly

*BEWARE - OFFENSIVE CONTENT*

Subliminal messages:

Gay marriage is trendy, youthful, and light; traditional Marriage is prudish, outdated, and black.

Love is all you need; the Bible is hocus pocus.

Gay marriage is right and good because all the money spent on weddings will save our economy. 

*Oh brother*

My take:

If this is what passes for comedy now days, I'll have no part of it.  It didn't make me laugh; it made me roll my eyes and throw my hands up in exasperation and disbelief.  I find it telling that the director went straight for mocking religious beliefs, completely ignoring the fact that there are stacks and stacks of secular research studies which prove that the gay lifestyle is violent, destructive, diseased, and unwholesome (check out the resources section here).  In truth, the reality of the gay lifestyle is a far cry from the bouncing, singing, "gaiety" depicted on the "beach" in this insipid musical.  The reality that is so conspicuously absent from this supposed "humor" is that of AIDS, violence and domestic abuse, broken homes, confused children, and a genderless, dead-end society, left stripped and scorned in the frigid cold, hugging its identity-complexed, family-murdered, dysfunctional self.

Reality Check:

Supporters of traditional marriage

(not anti-gay people, just anti-gay marriage)

Supporters of gay marriage 

(mockers and haters of all things religious)

Stark contrast, eh?  Let's be honest here, do these pictures inspire confidence in the gay community's touted love theme?  Does this look like a poor, victimized, minority that needs constitutional protection? Are these the same frolicking, gay beach-goers so "gaily" depicted in Prop 8 - The Musical?  The answer is a resounding "NO." Kinda like the one gays already got when 52% of Californians said that gay marriage was not acceptable to them.  Seems like we've got ourselves some kids who need a lesson on poor sportsmanship.  Gays need a modern-day Martin Luther who can teach them to be respectful and peaceful as they promote their so-called "rights."

And last....

Jack Black as Jesus?  Give me a break.  Check out this Jack Black Biography excerpt:

"This being the Seventies in Los Angeles, the parents believed that one should not say No to one's children, making life ever more volatile. Beyond this, there was what Black later described as weird family stuff, not wife-swapping exactly, but swinging. 'It was funny', he said 'and not funny ha-ha'."

Couldn't say "no" in the Seventies.  Gee, imagine that.  Perhaps, and this is just a theory, but perhaps the lack of parental discipline then is what feeds this sense of entitlement so prevalent among youth today.  Eh?  Can I get a "holla?!"  Just a thought.  So, anyway, back to Black.  He says he grew up with an awareness of the "weird" sexual practices of his parents, claiming it wasn't exactly ideal, but in a twisted turn-about he now supports the unconventional. (???)  Hm.  And then there's this....

"Black met cellist Tanya Haden, one of jazz great Charlie Haden's triplet daughters. In fact, he'd first met Haden back at his specialist high school, but the pair had never dated. Now, after just months together, they'd elope, getting married in March, 2006, with Haden bearing him his first child, son Samuel, that June."

Black doesn't exactly have the greatest track record to be able to establish what is good and right and to represent the Savior of the world.  When did sacred things become so openly and brazenly subjected to mockery without so much as a "by your leave?"  When were we taught to laugh at blasphemy and promote immorality?  When did Jack Black, Margaret Cho, and John C. Reilly become authorities on the Bible? And when did their opinion take precedence over thousands of years worth of Biblical teachings from the Savior Himself and His prophets?

Oh I could go on and on, but I'll save it for another post.  Coming up...discussion on how the media has spearheaded the moral neutering of society.