Buy the Book “Whatever Happen To COMMON Sense”
ORIGINAL LINK - Barack Obama: Our First Gay-Female-Hispanic-Asian-Jewish President!
Newsweek’s cover this week declares that Barack Obama is the “First Gay President,” playing on the reader’s knowledge that Obama isn’t himself gay, but his support for same-sex marriage earns him an honorary rainbow halo. The headline obviously calls back to 1998, when Toni Morrison declared Bill Clinton the first black president in The New Yorker, which at the time was edited by current Newsweek editor Tina Brown. “Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas,” Morrison wrote, laying out the formula for how to declare a President has attained the identity of someone else through actions and behaviors. Newsweek‘s cover has been called “controversial” and “pretty shocking,” but it’s merely the most recent in presidential firsts that weren’t for the country’s actual first black president.
LINK - Gay marriage Gives Romney Chance to Fire Up Base (Obama Puts Nails in Own Coffin)
“While many Republicans consider the sudden emergence of gay marriage as an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign an unhelpful distraction, social conservatives Sunday insisted the Obama administration has given presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney an opportunity.
“I think the president this past week took six or seven states he carried in 2008 and put them in play with this one ill-conceived position that he’s taken,” American Values President Gary Bauer said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“I think that Barack Obama has helped fit that missing piece of intensity that Mitt Romney is going to need,” Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian organization Family Research Council, said on CBS‘ “Face the Nation.”
Gay marriage is suddenly the country’s hottest political talking point after Mr. Obama last week said he now personally supports same-sex marriages — though he said the legality of such unions should be decided by individual states…”
LINK - America In Transition (Gay Delusions)
I am used to surprises from the New York Times—a newspaper so far from me culturally and politically it might as well be a daily bulletin about life in a parallel universe—but last August I read a personal essay in the “Modern Love” space of the “Styles” section that really brought me up short. “My Husband is Now My Wife” (quite a tabloidy title for this genteel newspaper) was about the deeply ambivalent day the author escorted her husband to a hospital for surgery in which he would “take his first surgical step into womanhood.”
I’m a jaded ex-Manhattanite, awright? “Sexual reassignment surgery,” as it is called, is not news. I know about the clinics in Colorado where they slice up existing organs and then do Play-Doh sculpturing with the tissue that’s left. The surgery thing has been going on since the sixties. And I know from cross-dressing. On my Upper West Side block it was not uncommon to encounter a neighbor—skinny, middle-aged, bald pate surrounded by a cap of stringy graying locks—taking his daily constitutional…on roller skates, wearing a tiara and a pink tutu, blessing passersby with a Tinkerbell wand.
So it wasn’t the soo-last-century, Dude-Looks-Like-a-Lady part that startled, it was the part near the end where the author lets slip that all her fussing about losing a husband and gaining a wife was actually over a hospital stay in which her husband would have “facial feminization surgery, a not uncommon procedure in male-to-female transitions, in which a surgeon carves out a more femininely proportioned version of a male face.”
“In my husband’s case,” she wrote, “this meant higher eyebrows, a smaller nose and a more pronounced chin. A few months later, his Adam’s apple would be shaved down and he would receive breast implants.”
Almost as if it was an afterthought, she added “genital surgery would follow” on some unspecified date.
OK, he hadn’t had the genital surgery yet. It was unclear if he ever would. Certainly, for the average woman, the breast part could be hard to take. But the point is, at the moment, “Husband” had just messed around with his face. So what entitled him to claim membership in the sorority of majestic, complex, mysterious creatures called Women? It was actually a bit presumptuous. (If I were a feminist I would say, “How very male.”)
But here we had our author, one Diane Daniel of North Carolina, telling herself sternly that she must remember to stop referring to Husband with “him,” “his,” and “he.” We meet the couple’s therapist who has been “suggesting for months” that Daniel “use female pronouns at home” when addressing Husband, even before he went into the hospital:
“I will when I need to,” I’d told her on our last visit. “But for now he’s still a man to me.” I’d turned to my husband, dressed in jeans and a black button-down shirt. “When I look at you, hon, I see a man.”
“But she’s a woman,” our therapist countered, her words slicing through my denial.
By the end of the essay, Daniel has re-educated herself. Now she gently corrects nurses when they use the “incorrect” pronoun:
“After he eats a little something, we’ll give him pain pills,” a nurse said.
“Could you say ‘she’?” I asked gently.
Once I looked in to it, I found more “Modern Love” columns where it was just assumed the reader has already accepted that “gender identity” (what you decide you are) trumps “gender assigned at birth” (what your body says you are). There was, for instance, the woman who started her essay by writing, “Before we met, my partner had changed names from a female-sounding one to a male one…”
…and by the time we were together, everyone we knew either called him by this new name or spoke of him with male pronouns. He identified himself as a transgender man, woman to man. It wasn’t until two years after we began dating that he decided to have his breasts removed. For him, chest surgery was the next step in transitioning genders, a symbolic and physical gesture of leaving womanhood behind.
This essay, written by a younger woman than Daniel, was much more philosophically evolved. Apparently this boyfriend, girlfriend, whatever, hadn’t had any medical interventions at all. She merely “identified himself as a transgender man” and began dressing as a man (what does that mean nowadays anyway?) and that was enough, the author says, for everyone they knew to either call him by this new name or speak of him with male pronouns.
WELCOME TO THE Brave New World of “gender identity” versus stick-in-the-mud old “gender.” This subjective aspect—the demand that the world recognize you as what you think you are, simply because you’ve decided you are—is new. It turns out law and theory to support this new definition have been proliferating quietly for quite some time as well.
In other words, when we stodgy old conservatives, not attuned to the latest reverberations of the “progressive” world, think of a “transsexual” or (this is much more correct) a “transgendered person,” we’re probably imagining, say, Christine Jorgensen (if we’re really old) or Jan Morris, i.e., someone who made a good old Protestant Work Ethic effort to “transition” to the other sex. We are thinking of people who have at least put a considerable amount of effort and in most cases, a lot of money, like their life savings, into this illusory project of “becoming the other sex.”
The various stodgy old state laws (it is the states that control issuance of the all-important birth certificate) reflect this attachment to physical reality versus subjectivity. Most state laws are still like those in New York City, which, since 1971, has been willing to issue a “corrected” birth certificate to a transgender person provided he or she is able to prove, via a detailed medical record, that “the applicant has undergone ‘convertive’ surgery, which has generally but not exclusively been interpreted by the Department [of Health and Mental Hygiene] to mean genital surgery.”
This onerous surgery requirement has been excised in a several states but that’s hardly enough, say the gender activists. As lawyer Christopher Daley of the very activist Transgender Law Center explains, a transgender person is one “whose internal understanding of their own gender is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.…Transgender persons seek to live in accordance with the sex that takes proper account of the sex of their brain…” (The Transgender Law Center is apparently even so uncomfortable with the designations like “men’s room” or “women’s toilet” that they refer to “gendered” public bathrooms as “bathrooms intended for people who identify with a particular gender.”)
In the future, as Kristina Wertz of the Transgender Law Center puts it, all of official America will recognize “that gender identity is not dependent upon anatomy or the ability to access expensive medical treatment.” Wertz applauded the State Department for its June 2010 policy change, a small but important one, stating that applicants wishing to change the gender markers on their passports will only need to present certification that they have “undergone appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition.” The State of Vermont has amended its law to say that “hormonal or other treatments” are sufficient for a sex change on a birth certificate.
Chaz Bono, one of America’s most famous female-to-male transgendered people, was a beneficiary of California’s liberalized law. On May 2, 2010, Bono was able to leave a Santa Monica courthouse officially a man, after the court’s acceptance of a vaguely worded letter from a doctor stipulating that he had “performed an irreversible surgical procedure for the purpose of altering Chaz Bono’s sexual characteristics from female to male.” (At the time Bono had had a mastectomy and lots of testosterone.) Meanwhile the press had never questioned that Chaz Bono was anything other than all man, from the moment the Chaz persona appeared on the scene and throughout “his” turn on “Dancing With the Stars.” When Hollywood Reporter reviewed the documentary Becoming Chaz, it obediently informed us that Chaz Bono “was a male trapped in a female body since birth.”
Outside of the Mainstream Media, there are, of course, still some dinosaurs skulking around who are not comfortable with the notion that you can change your sex by whacking something off and soldering something else on. There is the matter of chromosomes, and wombs, and the fact that the newly constructed genitals aren’t good for much of anything except just kind of sitting there—like a trophy, a symbol. They are useless for procreation. Both kinds of sex reassignment surgeries, female-to-male and male-to-female, render the recipient irreversibly sterile. And they are not too good for other uses either. As Chaz Bono explained on the David Letterman show, she has not been rushing the decision to get what the trans community calls “bottom surgery” because “you can end up with something functional but very small or something that’s more normal sized but without much erotic sensation.” (Chaz did admit that “There’s different ways to do the surgery, from real basic to more and more options. It’s like a car.”)
In short, the long-standing “surgery requirement” laws may have seemed silly when they first appeared, but they now stir up something like nostalgia. At least they are a nod to the idea that gender is rooted in anatomy, and that maybe human beings are defined by their role in the procreative project.
SO IS THERE SUCH A THING as “the sex of one’s brain”? Questions like this raged back and forth in 1966 when Johns Hopkins Hospital opened its Gender Identity Clinic and became the first hospital in America to do sex change operations. The doctors had a variety of opinions about why these operations were worth doing. Some, bolstered by a new genre of psychological theory, were downright messianic about “correcting the body to match the real gender.” Some seemed to feel that the surgeries were like a nose job or any other cosmetic surgery, a chance to make a body-part-obsessed person feel better. Some, like psychiatrist Paul McHugh, who did psychological screenings for the program, eventually became fiercely opposed. He saw other doctors’ relatively easy acceptance of the project as a kind of abdication of the professional’s role and a symptom of a social climate in which “all standards by which behaviours are judged are simply matters of opinion—and emotional opinions at that.” The new relativism was even reflected in new attitudes toward schizophrenics—who, increasingly, were deinstitutionalized as a matter of course and treated as if they were just expressing “a different lifestyle choice.” With a similar reluctance to “be judgmental” about someone else’s life choice, McHugh felt that patients were too often approved for surgery without much probing, out of “the spirit of doing your thing, following your bliss, an aesthetic that sees diversity as everything and can accept any idea, including that of permanent sex change, as interesting and that views resistance to such ideas as uptight if not oppressive,” he wrote in a scathing article for the American Scholar titled “Psychiatric Misadventures.”
“Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should,” wrote McHugh. In his intake interviews, the typical applicant claimed it was “torture for him to live as a man, especially now that he has read in the newspapers about the possibility of switching surgically to womanhood.” But “[u]pon examination it is not difficult to identify other mental and personality difficulties…” which McHugh believed, unless resolved, would follow the patient into his new body and torment him again after attaching to a new external target.
“It is not obvious,” he note, “how this patient’s feeling that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body differs from the feeling of a patient with anorexia nervosa that she is obese despite her emaciated, cachectic state.”
“We don’t do liposuction on anorexics,” he wrote. “Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? Surely, the fault is in the mind not the member.”
BUT THE STANDARDS McHugh complained about in the late sixties have become so entrenched, I may as well be quoting cuneiform off a stone tablet. Allowing some patriarchal white male Ob/Gyn to have the power to take a cursory glance at your baby genitalia and “assign a gender” doesn’t seem to fit in a world where “self-definition” has become a mantra.
And this may explain why, according to the New York Times, “a growing number of high school and college students…are pushing for the right to change their pronoun whenever they feel like it.” Katy Butler, one of those high school students, identifies herself as part of the “nonconforming gender community” and is one of those enthusiastic about “Preferred Gender Pronouns” (PGPs).
“You have to understand, this has nothing to do with your sexuality and everything to do with who you feel like inside,” Katy said, explaining that at the start of every Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Association meeting, participants are first asked if they would like to share their PGPs.
A PGP can change as often as one likes. If the pronouns in the dictionary don’t suffice, there are numerous made-up ones now in use, including “ze,” “hir,” and “hirs,” words that connote both genders because, as Katy explained, “Maybe one day you wake up and feel more like a boy.”
Butler is lucky enough to live in the anything-goes enclave of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Out in the hinterlands the idea that a newly chosen “gender identity and expression” must be tolerated at all times does not always go down so well. Men who have recently decided they are women, for example, and show up at work wearing a dress have been fired or been harassed until they quit. There have been a number of savage attacks on trans people who attempted to use the public restroom corresponding to their gender identity.
Enter what the New Republic last year called “America’s Next Great Civil Rights Struggle,” the struggle to end discrimination against transsexuals in housing, the workplace—and eventually any other place a trial lawyer can discover it. Sixteen states (plus D.C.) and 143 cities or counties have added “gender identity or expression” to their protected categories lists—alongside the usual race, religion, gender (the other kind of gender), age, and disability. A more subtle but telling sign that more states will probably add the new category is the news that 207 major corporations (places like Coca-Cola, Apple, Chevron, Kellogg, and Best Buy) now offer insurance covering the cost of full-scale “transitions.” According to 2011 numbers collected by the Human Rights Campaign’s annual Corporate Equity Index, this is an increase “from just 85 a year earlier.” When HRC began following the issue a decade ago, no corporations covered the surgery.
A number of recent gender identity discrimination cases have been settled in the plaintiffs’ favor. If Johnny is hired as a paper pusher, and then starts to come to work as Jane, and then is fired, his lawsuit for workplace discrimination and wrongful termination is relatively straightforward, because the defendants cannot usually prove the sex change affected the job of paper pusher.
Things get murkier when a workplace has established a “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification” to justify hiring only males or only females. Yes, there are jobs where one can still discriminate. Take “urine monitors”—the people who would watch you pee into a cup if you went for a drug test.
El’Jai Devoureau is currently embroiled in a gender discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Urban Treatment Centers of Camden, New Jersey. Devoureau, a fortysomething who claims to have been dressing as a man for years, to have had years of hormone therapy and some kind of surgery which she/he has so far been very opaque about, and who even has a “male” driver’s license, applied for the male-only job but was fired after two days because Devoureau’s supervisor said rumors were going around that she/he was not a man. Devoureau, who wears long corn rows, sports a wispy beard, and looks a bit like the ’80s singer Terence Trent D’Arby, said, “But I am a man.” The supervisor said something to the effect of, “Um, we don’t think so.” And the standoff began. The case has thus begun its crawl through the New Jersey court system. More evidence to support Devoureau’s claim may have to be…er, unveiled to support Devoureau’s claim—but maybe not. As the New York Times says, the outcome could turn on “the question of what is a man.” It could certainly be precedent-setting.
WHAT I FIND REALLY ODD about this “new Civil Rights movement” is that it’s happening now—after decades of struggle over the boundaries of sex roles and a great expansion of norms. As one of the online commenters to the New Republic’s “Great New Civil Rights Struggle” article put it, “Isn’t the trans-sexual phenomenon at heart conservative? Instead of enlarging the range of human behavior, it narrows the options down to ‘girls act one way and boys another so if you act one way, you have to be trapped in the wrong gender’s body.’ ”
But exactly. As a sign of how far we have come, there is a film, Alfred Nobbs, currently in theaters. It’s about a 19th century woman “living as a man” apparently because she seeks the love of women. But in 2012 no woman has to dress as a man in order to openly partner with another woman. (Well, in most parts of the country!) No woman has to attempt to “pass” as a man to take a job on a highway crew, or to enter a training program for fighter jet pilots.
Another curiously retrograde part: Once they “transition” many transgenders become the most devout standard-bearers for sex stereotypes. “When you discuss what the patient means by ‘feeling like a woman’ you often get a sex stereotype in return—something that woman physicians note immediately is a male caricature of women’s attitudes and interests,” Paul McHugh wrote. “One of our patients, for example, said that, as a woman, he would be more ‘invested with being than with doing.’”
“Ever since I became a woman, I just can’t do math anymore,” trills the main source in the New Republic’s “Civil Rights” article.
Chaz Bono is now infamous for having become a walking sexist-comment-machine. (“I can be a a-hole; I can be insensitive.…There is something in testosterone that makes talking and gossiping really grating.…I’ve stopped talking as much. I’ve noticed that [my girlfriend] can talk endlessly.…I got way more gadget-oriented.…Definitely since transitioning I’ve wanted to be up on the latest, coolest toy.”)
Accordingly, Warren Beatty’s oldest child (who started life as Kathlyn but is known, after hormone treatments, as “Stephen Ira Beatty”) has taken to excoriating Bono from her blog, with flamers like: “I don’t want any rich white trans guy…telling the media that testosterone made him a misogynist…he has some deep-seated misogyny to work through.”
If your head is spinning with all this gender-bending, join the club. But keep in mind that there is one reference point that will hold steady like the North Star: With this new category of victim slouching toward Bethlehem to be born, the trial lawyers are girding happily. I await the day a male-to-female trans applies for a job at Hooters.
I mentioned not too long ago that I was exposed to a bunch of lesbian ex-nuns (and active nuns) when I was a kid outside of Kansas City. My bedroom window looked out onto the bell towers of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth’s headquarters, less than a mile away. The sisters who were old-school, pre-Vatican II wore habits and were generally conservative, but sidelined because of their age. The 1960′s and forward “nuns” were pretty much all lesbians, or if they weren’t, they were sure fooling a lot of people with their high-and-tight six-dollar haircuts, manly clothing and overall butch affectations and comportment. If a child can’t instantly tell whether a person is a man or a woman, there are some serious, serious psychosexual problems afoot with the androgyne in question. And, like I said, Leavenworth was never lacking for “courageous ex-nuns”, who always ended up living with fellow ex-nun “roommates”. Uh-huh.
Well, the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth officially jumped the ol’ shark and have declared according to their own pagan magisterium that abortifacients are just fine with them.
Here’s the citation from the Topeka Capital Journal.
Now, you may be thinking that a little cabal of nuns in Leavenworth, Kansas is no big shakes, right? Wrong. This is a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR business concern, and this example perfectly demonstrates what I and so many others (such as Karl Denninger) have been saying about the evil incestuous problem with the Marxist-infiltrators of the Church and how they have intentionally pushed for government takeover of the care of the sick and the poor.
First, here is a URL documenting the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Healthcare System’s (SCLHS) size:
Fitch rates their bonds as AA-. Yes, that’s right. They have a Fitch rating. Um, is it just me, or does that seem . . . wrong somehow?
Yeah. So, one more time for those of you who might be new or still haven’t figured this out yet. The Marxist infiltrators of the Catholic Church have specifically and consciously pushed for the government takeover of pretty much all charitable functions that WERE the domain of the Church – hence the traitorous alliance with the “democrat” party in the United States.
In doing this, these traitors to Our Lord have essentially used the power of the State to enforce a “mandatory tithe”, coercing every earner in the United States through the Internal Revenue Service, regardless of religious affiliation or personal preference, to pay for the services that the Church SHOULD be paying for, but has ABANDONED. That’s right. The Church has almost totally abandoned caring for the sick and the poor. Now what we have are these massive for-profit outfits like the SCLHS which are for-profit middle-men who bill everything that would have formerly been “charity” to the United States government – while still trying to lord “moral authority” over everyone else by falsely claiming to be “the Church.”
Aside from this being pure evil, the result is a mathematical inevitability: a Ponzi scheme doomed to collapse and failure. But then, that is exactly what the Marxists were driving toward – total systemic collapse leading to the Marxist oligarchs taking complete totalitarian control of the former United States, and then the entire world. The Church has been infiltrated and used as a stooge to push state control of healthcare, care of the poor and the elderly.
The point of the Marxists specifically recruiting homosexualists into the clergy is playing out before our very eyes right now. First, the homosexualists were charged with degrading and draining the Church of its capacity to preach the Gospel, and eventually to have the Church become operationally Marxist itself. The final step in this process has already begun, namely schisming the Church and forming an “American Catholic Church”, which will be a neo-pagan Marxist “Revolutionary church” and will operate as a client and front for the Marxist regime in Washington D.C.
The SCLHS is a perfect example of this. First, they want the billion-dollar gravy train to keep flowing and so they will support the Marxist regime to the very end, because the thought of them actually cutting into their TEN-FIGURE portfolio to actually, you know, PAY for healthcare for the poor in a Christ-like spirit of true charity is utterly beyond their comprehension. Are we surprised, given that they approve of killing innocent babies?
Second, since the SCLHS is almost entirely comprised of lesbians, they WANT the Church to schism and they want to form an “American Catholic Church” that will ratify and celebrate their psychosexual perversions, ordain them as priestesses, and then let those “priestesses” MARRY and engage in sodomite acts. They need statist intervention in order to make this happen, and that is EXACTLY what they are getting. The Obama regime has declared war on the Bride of Christ, and is erecting the frame of the “Revolutionary church”.
So, at the end of the day, it is all about the love of money, and perverted sex.
People, there is NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN.
Finally, one more time, CHARITY and COERCION are absolutely, totally, completely 100% MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. The moment that even the slightest HINT of coercion enters into the picture, charity is DESTROYED. Gone. Adios.
Love (caritas) MUST be freely given. It HAS to be a free choice of the giver. Putting the gun and jackboot of the IRS to people’s heads and necks BY DEFINITION exterminates charity. Apparently, every jackass bishop in the Western World today is either too stupid or too Marxist to comprehend or acknowledge this utterly fundamental truth.
ANY bishop who crows on and on and waxes philosophical about the state’s NECESSARY role in healthcare, care of the poor or care of the elderly is a heretical jackass who needs to sit down, shut up, beg God’s forgiveness for being a Marxist jackass, and then beg the Holy Spirit for a modicum of intelligence and understanding of simple, obvious truths.
Christ charged THE CHURCH with caring for the sick, poor and elderly – IN CHARITY, meaning that the Church FREELY GIVES, beginning with the FREELY GIVEN tithes of the individual faithful, and then FREELY GIVEN by the Church itself to the poor, sick and elderly.
This system worked beautifully up until 50 years ago, when the Marxist-homosexualists took over. Not only did it work, but there was even enough money to build BEAUTIFUL churches. Now the Church pays for none of these things out of its own coffers, and instead money is spent on building butt-ulgy churches. There is a relatively new parish here in the Denver metro area for which the rectory – that is the priest’s house – cost $800,000. Apparently this priest felt that he “deserved” to be rewarded with an $800,000 pad. Meanwhile, at the Latin Mass parish I attend, the priests live in a small, old house, and donate their $13,000 per year salaries back to the parish. That’s telling, don’t you think?
These Novus Ordo clergy and religious are TERRIFIED at the thought of being held to the charge and discipline of the pre-Vatican II Church and actually having to spend tithe revenue on CHARITY and embrace poverty themselves, and they will schism the Church before they turn loose of their government coerced ObamaCare/Medicare/Medicaid/SocialSecurity/Welfare gravy train.
Posted by Ann Barnhardt
LINK - The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Watch Glenn Beck discuss the Christian bashing incident below…
Dan Savage, a paid evangelist of the HOMOSEX agenda, earns a living giving people “sex advice”, which usually amounts to nothing more than just encouraging students and others to engage in wonton sexual activity.
Not surprisingly, he’s no fan of the Bible. In a recent speech to students, the founder of the ‘It Gets Better’ anti-bullying campaign decided not to talk about bullying but instead bully Christians and the Bible himself.
Watch the original shocking video of Savage below:
LINK - Vulnerable Senate Dems Back Away from Obama Gay Marriage Flip Flop
“The Hill reports that some Democratic senators up for re-election have declined to back President Obama’s gay marriage statement.
Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.), the two most vulnerable Democratic senators, have declined to endorse Obama’s call for the legalization of gay marriage.
Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Bob Casey (Pa.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), Democrats who have easier races but in states that could become more competitive by November, have also backed away from Obama’s stance.
They all represent states with constitutional amendments or laws banning same-sex marriage.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) predicted Thursday the Democratic Party would adopt a pro-gay marriage plank in its platform. While that may happen when delegates to the Democratic National Convention meet September in Charlotte, N.C., the party remains divided…”
Original Link Here
Listeners of New York hip hop radio station HOT 97 did not take kindly to the news that President Obama had endorsed same-sex marriage. The day after the announcement, callers took to the airwaves to express their disappointment with the news.
The sad part is amazingly there are people in New York whose votes he just lost. No question about it I have been doing radio for a long time and whenever I talk about this issue I am shocked by how many people call up and are upset with the idea of supporting same-sex marriage. Even in New York, even in 2012.
So, if anyone in NYC is disappointed that Obama made this announcement, call us up.
Anthony, how do you feel about Obama? You’re not feeling him, huh?
No, because I’m totally against that same-sex marriage, man. I’m 27, I grew up in the days where a female’s supposed to marry a female, I mean a male supposed to marry a female.
How does it affect you?
Because you got the younger generation in today’s society growing up. I mean if you have a kid would you want your kid, if he was a boy, marrying another guy? Or daughter marrying another girl? The emotions, the feelings?
I’m totally against it. I mean I’m born and raised in New York, my parents are from Guyana. That would never go in Guyana.
Jennifer, you will not vote for Obama because of what he said?
I don’t know, I’ve never liked gay people
Jennifer, do you know how disgusting that sounds?
Let me rephrase that, I don’t agree with what they are into.
I’m not going to vote for Obama because I feel like… he knew he was losing votes and he needed to get people’s attention. And that’s what he did. Why did he want to do this now, when he knows election day is…
Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, led opponents in the move to deny a judgeship to Richmond prosecutor Tracy Thorne-Begland.
In a testy interview today with CNN’s Brooke Baldwin on the Virginia legislature’s recent refusal to appoint openly gay Richmond prosecutor Tracy Thorne-Begland to a judgeship, Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, declared that “sodomy is not a civil right.”
Marshall, a U.S. Senate candidate and one of the General Assembly’s most conservative members, denied that he had lobbied against Thorne-Begland because he is gay, but instead termed him an “activist.”
Marshall said Thorne-Begland “displayed a pattern of behavior inconsistent with what we have come to expect in Virginia judges.”
As examples, he said Thorne-Begland had been forced to “misstate his background” in order to join the Navy in the late 1980s, defied regulation by going on television and been openly critical of the now-defunct “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
“He can be a prosecutor if he wants to,” Marshall said, “but we don’t want advocates as judges.”
Marshall added that he was “concerned about possible bias” if Thorne-Begland had been appointed a General District judge, using the example of a barroom fight between a homosexual and heterosexual.
Marshall rejected Baldwin’s comparison of the issue to civil rights and women’s suffrage, remarking: “Sodomy is not a civil right. It’s not the same as the civil rights movement.”