Daily Whackjob

(cross-posted at Now At The Podium) 

Governor Tim Kaine cut federal funding that was provided to schools that promoted abstinence-only sexual education.  Conservatives (of the social variety) have been spewing various amounts of outrage.  Many state this is promoting immoral behavior, encouraging promiscuity, and so forth.

However, let’s be realistic here.  Teenagers have been trying to find ways and reasons to have sex since the beginning of recorded history.

Should we have sex-ed programs that stress and promote abstinence?  Of course!  Anyone who says “we should encourage teens to have sex as early and as often as possible” would be nuts!  That’s something that the vast majority of us would agree with.  However, we have to be smart about this and realize that abstinence-only hasn’t exactly proven to be a big hit or a successful deterrent to teens doing…well, “it”.

Parents should have the ability to opt their children out of sex-ed classes, and most people also agree with that.   I also believe we teach sex-ed at too young of an age.  I remember being in the 3rd grade, all of 9 years old, doing diagrams of the different parts of a penis and a vagina.  Even though I do believe that kids these days “grow up faster” and learn more at an earlier age than previous generations…there is no need to augment the rapid decrease in time that a child has to simply be a child.  I’d say that 5th grade (normally 10-11 years old) is a good time to start with sex-ed, but go with the basics (anatomical differences, etc…)

Anything earlier than that is the responsibility of the parents to decide if their kids are mature enough to handle the subject matter at hand.

Let’s be fair about this, as well…promote abstinence from the start.  However, starting in late middle-school and high school, lay it out there that if you choose not to abstain from pre-marital sex, one should use protection.  Teach the mechanics, talk about the risks of unsafe sex, especially with multiple partners.  Talk about STD’s, et cetera…pretty much common-sense stuff.

On the issue of homosexuality, I believe that children should be taught what it is and that it exists…but no moral “Yes, it’s OK” or “No, it’s wrong” stamp should be placed on it.  There’s too much gray area in terms of how people feel about homosexual relationships that to have the public schools approve or disapprove of it, that would be wrong and exclusive.

The point of my idea is that you wait until the kids are mature enough to handle the subject matter before the schools get involved.  Also, I believe that this idea of mine allows for a fairly universal form of objective morality (promote abstinence or at least “waiting” until you’re older, teaching safe sex habits…the things we all generally agree on).  At the same time, it reduces the effect the curriculum has on the more subjective aspects of people’s morals (whether or not being gay/lesbian is OK, whether or not abstinence is the only way, etc…).

Obviously, I’m not an expert on this subject.  I’m just simply attempting to apply common sense to an issue that people take so many different sides on.

Thoughts?

Larry Flynt has revived his Clinton-era promise of a reward for those who catch politicians being unfaithful.

Good idea. “Protect the sanctity of marriage” bumper stickers make me sick. The divorce rate among “Christians” (the supposed moral people?) is higher than that of non-Christians. Where do Christians get off “saving our country!” and “saving our society and culture!” by banning homosexuals from getting married, but they divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry, ad infinitum? Seems that homosexuals couldn’t do much more damage to the sanctity of marriage than Christians already have.

I see from the kids over at RK that the Virginia Partisans will be holding a fundraiser for Bruce Roemmelt on March 29th. Details can be found at the Partisans Website. You can also show Bruce some love by donating a few bucks. Remember, every time you donate a dollar to Bruce Roemmelt, the Pope yells at Bob Marshall.

This is like homosexuals committing sodomy in the middle of an intersection.

I’m going to bed.

NLS has posted that Kate Obenshain-Griffin, former head of the Republican Party of Virginia, has asked her husband to take their kids and get out. Several comments over at NLS are asking why something like this is being posted to blogs. The reason this is important is that Ms. Obenshain-Griffin just spent the majority of 2006 telling voters that the Marriage Amendment would defend the sanctity of marriage.

If the Republican Party continues to claim the moral high ground and wants to be the party of God, they have to expect to be held to a higher standard. Underage drinking, infidelity, divorce, and congressional/pastoral gay sex are all the antithesis of the GOP’s self-image, yet when they are caught in the act, they scream for privacy.

Kate Obenshain-Griffin has no right preaching about the defense of marriage when she has violated her own vows, and no one in the Republican Party should be jumping to her defense. What this really tells us is that the Republican Party chooses to exempt their own members from the moral standards they wish to legislate on the people of America.

If you truly want to defend marriage, make Republicans live up to the standard they preach before allowing them to legislate.

Sam Brownback agreed to remove his hold on the nomination of Judge Janet Neff. Brownback placed the hold because Neff once attended a lesbian commitment ceremony as a guest. One of the lesbians was the daughter of long-time neighbors.

One of the women in the ceremony, Judge Neff wrote, was the daughter of a family who had lived next door for 26 years. She said the families were so close that the woman was, in effect, a part of her family and was like a big sister to her own daughters. She said that she had delivered a homily at the ceremony and that “it was no different than being asked by my own daughters to be part of an important event in their lives.”

Brownback proposed a solution that he would remove the block if Neff agreed to recuse herself from any cases that involved same-sex unions.

In an interview last week, Mr. Brownback said that he still believed Judge Neff’s behavior raised serious questions about her impartiality and that he was likely to vote against her. But he said he did not realize his proposal — asking a nominee to agree in advance to remove herself from deciding a whole category of cases — was so unusual as to be possibly unprecedented. Legal scholars said it raised constitutional questions of separation of powers for a senator to demand that a judge commit to behavior on the bench in exchange for a vote.

So, according to Brownback’s logic, a judge who knows someone with a drug addiction should excuse herself from any drug-related case.

Charles Fried, a Harvard Law School professor and leading conservative scholar, said Mr. Brownback’s actions were improper. “First of all, people go to parties for all sorts of reasons,” Professor Fried said, and how one would rule on a case should not be inferred from that private activity.

Further, he said, “It would be inappropriate for the judge to recuse herself from any such case because it is a judge’s duty to sit on cases” unless there is a clear conflict of interest. There would be a genuine conflict of interest, he said, if the judge had a financial interest in a case’s result or had been associated with one of the parties in the case.

It appears that an election season is coming up and the posturing has begun. I guess we can expect flag-burning amendments any day now.

You might as well vote no on #1, it appears we’ve infected your Christian leaders with the gay  disease. Oh, the sweet, sweet irony. It’s usually the case that the guy who called everyone a fag in high school is now performing in drag shows every Thursday in the Casto.

The most militant anti-gays seem to be the biggest closet cases.

a court ruling on same-sex marriage is released. Though, the last time, the ruling went the opposite way. Anyway, I’m in Northern California for a few days, and I’ll be back this weekend. This explains why some of you may have felt a change in the gay force around 8:45 this morning.

The proponents of the Gay Bashing Amendment claim it’s restating current law. Lets see if that’s true (hat tip to Fruitcake for digging out the current law).

The amendment:

Question: Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state:

“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”?

Current Law:

§ 20-45.2. Marriage between persons of same sex.

A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable.

(1975, c. 644; 1997, cc. 354, 365.)

§ 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex.

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

(2004, c. 983.)

Yes, I highlighted one slightly important distinction between current law and the amendment. Current law distinguishes as same sex, while the amendment merely states “unmarried individuals”. What you Republicans don’t realize is that Bob Marshall isn’t just attacking gay people, he’s attacking unmarried women also.

The Commonwealth Coalition has estimated that 650 students and Virginians attended the rally at GMU. First, there is no way that many people were there. In fact, there is no way that many people could be present in that space. I estimated about 150 to maybe 200 people were present (not including the 10 people from the Cult of the Yellow Sign), though sadly, the majority of these people appeared to be in their early 40’s to late 50’s, and probably not GMU students.

The rally was positive, but there is no reason to try to inflate the numbers for PR.

Blogactive is going after the gay Republican closet-case staffers (HT to Alice), and why shouldn’t he? These are people who work in such places as George Allen’s office (though, many of those are actually out of the closet), and help a man vote to discriminate against them. I’ve never understood what these people have to gain from these actions.

It is time to find out which closet cases are living a lie in DC, pushing these bigoted measures and amendments forward while secretly living la vida homo. I understand people who stay in the closet at their government jobs for fear of retribution against their sexuality. However, when you’re a staffer in Congress or at the White House, and your boss is pushing discrimination against you and those like you, you have a choice to make. And these staffers have: they sold out.

As BlogActive says:

Some have said this is a purge of gays from the government. No my friends, this is NOT about gays. To suggest that there will be a purge of gays from the government is preposterous. Now, if you want to talk about a purge of anti-gay closet cases facilitating the hard Right’s agenda… I say purge away.

Agreed.

Update:

HL has some additional points.

The fab Howling Latina goes after BVBL over his daily attack on Rishell. It must have been a slow news day since the only thing he could go after was that an endorsement from the VA Partisans was missing from her website (thanks for the tip, it appears that the campaign has fixed the error). Make no mistake folks, Rishell doesn’t believe in discrimination, especially not in the state constitution, and especially not right next to the right to hunt and fish.

BVBL’s real goal here is to scare enough gay bashers out of their house to vote against the gays, oh, and while you’re there, vote for Allen, Wolf, and Miller. This is the real reason for such an amendment. You’ve heard these people justify the amendment saying it won’t change anything, it just repeats what’s currently in state law. It’s a turnout ploy and it seems to have worked in the past. Will it work again? Foley-gate may help by polarizing the gay bashers or it may hurt and depress the evangelicals. We’ll know in a month or so.

I am about to break the biggest rule in gay society and be sent to gay hell (where people like Republitarian shop at AF and AE, and the rest of us get Wal-Mart). This is a rare instance where a gay man will reveal something that could give ammo to the gay-bashers out there. So listen up Republitarian, because I’m going to tell you how some gays are made. They are made like this.

That’s right homo-haters. The sight of Ben Tribbett standing lecherously outside a Victoria’s Secret is the key to unlocking the lesbian tendencies of women. Beautiful heterosexual women will panic on site, run home, throw out the razor, and start shopping for hemp clothes on the Internet. We’re not talking about the lipstick lesbians you straight guys think of when you’re alone with your buddies in the woods, hunting, and everyone’s drunk, and you don’t think they’ll remember what you did in the morning. We’re talking about hairy, butch, mean, man-hating dykes that would love nothing more than to cut off your manhood and staple it to the front fender of a Harley.

I applaud Ben Tribbett for taking steps to encourage the growth of these budding lesbians. Our community and our state need many more conversions to further the homosexual agenda. Right now, our homosexual scientists are working on a formula to bottle the Tribbett phenomenon to be used in churches, maternity wards, and swap meets.

With enough gay old time and resources, our embryonic stem cell research–secretly disguised as Parkinson’s research–will allow us to skip the Ben Tribbett factor and go right to cloning gay babies. Then, we can harvest enough gays to have the voting majority (63% after Diebold factor) and final restore the dignity and honor that rightfully belongs to this country.

There will be a Pottery Barn on every corner, next to the Starbucks, between the A&F and the Structure, with random little Ikeas and hair stylists scattered about here and there. And may Margaret Cho shelter the brazen harlot who dares commit treason by wearing white after Labor Day or leaves the house wearing that shirt and those pants.

Money will be color coordinated, but never green. The phrase, “What is Assmaster?” will be printed across every legal document. Those who don’t understand this will be deported to the former state of Mississippi–now a penal colony along with Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, and all of Louisiana except New Orleans–to work in the hair products factories.

I encourage all concerned patriots to assist our great revolutionary Ben Tribbett in this momentous opportunity to save this country from bad hair, cheap clothes, and crappy beer.

Republitarian brings up an excellent point about Saxman’s bill to give a tax break on school supplies, wedding dresses, and lingerie:

How many people will be running to the lingerie store on those couple of days to get a tax break on “unmentionables”. It probably wouldn’t amount to enough to talk about.

Excellent point. Let’s apply this logic to other situations. How many gay couples can get married before we cross the line of enough to talk about and consider it an issue? 2,000? 20,000? 200,000? Or, we could propose that for every ten heterosexual marriages that end in divorce, one loving gay couple can get married. If the divorce was due to infidelity, add an additional gay couple. For every four straight marriage brought about because of an unwanted pregnancy, another loving gay couple is allowed to be married. And every time some pop start gets married for 56 hours, 100 gay couples can be married to the partners they are devoted to.

While Republicans might give their leaders a pass on this bill because it includes wedding veils and not computers, Democrats should be furious about yet another hypocrisy by the “fiscal and social conservatives”. It always amazes me how both sides (Democrats and Republicans) can give their partisan leaders a pass (Moran’s stupid statement about earmarks as a good Democrat example) when they do something stupid.

If one dollar of tax revenue was lost due to someone buying a wedding dress during a back to school tax-exempt period, then we need to talk about it. Since we’ve got a war going, we need to conserve at home, as the Republicans are always saying. Every penny counts.

You can try to rationalize it as protecting tradition marriage from judicial activism, but when you break it down to nuts and bolts, Marshall/Newman is a gay bashing bill. It’s purpose is to put the gays in their place.

If it passes, this bill will prove to the U.S. that Virginia is not ready for an open and accepting society. That’s okay. It’s the way Virginia exists. It’s reality. Virginia will have allowed radical hatred in the form of Bob Marshall to become state constitutional law. And Virginia really isn’t ready.

Maybe the United States also isn’t ready to consider gays and lesbians as equals and not as perversion. We’ve done much worse things over the past 6 years to show the world that we don’t have our priorities straight; that we aren’t ready to be a super-power. We’ve shown the world that our nation only respects the life of soon-to-be-discarded embryos instead of Iraqis, the mentally insane/retarded, latinos, religions other than Christianity, or anyone who isn’t big business.

It saddens me to think about how much ground we’ve lost. Under Clinton, we had DOMA, but we also had Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Under Bush (the uniter) we’ve gotten states passing gay-bashing bills due to election scare tactics by the Republicans. Would anything have changed other than Republicans wouldn’t scare their religious base to the polls if gays did get married?

How long will it take the next president to clean up the budget, mend ties with other countries, and restore the nation’s trust? Rationalize those any way you want, but the Bush approval numbers tell the story of the nation’s trust.

I know we’ll come through this eventually, and things will be okay, but I don’t know how long it will be, how much time will be lost, and what opportunities we will miss. I love my country, but I’m ashamed of my government.

[Background: STD originally wrote this post, I responded with this post, and he returned with this post. The below is my response.]

I took issue with STD’s blanket statement that there are “plenty of cases” where Social Security isn’t reported when someone dies. I responded that the funeral home notifies Social Security and they are also notified when the death certificate is filed. I also noted that STD did not provide any statistics on this.

STD responded with this document from Social Security that provides statistics (this was found through a simple Google search). First, this document supports my point of how Social Security is notified. Second, STD feels this backs his claim of “plenty” by touting 210 prosecuted cases (out of two million Social Security beneficiaries/year). The example given was a fraud that began in Sept. 1992, before the 1999 recommendations. The 1999 recommendations included the matching against state death registries.

What we garner from this is the 210 cases were prosecuted in 2002, and it can be assumed that in many of these cases, the fraud began before 1999 (based on the Sept 2002 example given). So, two million SSA beneficiaries die each year, and 210 cases of fraud were prosecuted. This doesn’t qualify as proof. It’s too limited to provide a good example and does not assist in the argument.

The second point that STD argues is that I provided more examples to validate one of his arguments:

My point in the entire piece that I wrote is that Marriage is “Subsidized by Government”, for the reason of “Promoting Families”, that in turn procreate more tax payers.

The problem with this argument is that it’s not guaranteed that all marriages will produce children. This may have been the intent originally, in the early 1900’s, but it is no longer true today. It seems that a better method would be to remove the marriage tax benefit and increase the child tax credit. STD also doesn’t account for gay or lesbian families who adopt children.

I attacked STD’s argument that being gay is a lifestyle by saying he is neither an expert nor has he provided any proof. STD provides the following argument to justify this conclusion:

OK, how do I qualify that statement? I guess you will just have to forgive my pragmatism on the subject, but My Mother, and My Father got married and had three offspring, of which I was one. You see, I find this to be a “system” that has been going on for all of time. Governments, and yes even religions, are keenly aware of this fact, and promote (even through financial tax incentives). I should include that divorce is also made “expensive” by an arm of the government, the courts… (and for what purpose, to deter divorce)

This is a complete non-sequiter. Gay is a lifestyle because straight people have been getting married for a long time? This argument doesn’t discount the existence of gay people “for all time.” There are recorded histories of gay and lesbian relationships in early Native American tribes. Also, it’s illogical to use the argument that marriage is for procreation to support the argument that gay is a lifestyle to support to argument that marriage is for procreation. And with the divorce rate hovering between 40% and 50%, the “expensive divorce” deterrent is a failure, and does not account for couples who are separated but not divorced.

Next, we have this argument:

Two men getting married produces no offspring, and therefore no benefit to our nation that would justify subsidy in our tax code.

By this simple logic, neither is the marriage between a man and a woman who:

1. Choose not to have children.
2. Are incapable of having children.

Tax breaks for procreation fails on this simple point.

STD then lists several other points he made that I did not challenge. Those points are:

Now in summary, I would like to point out that DWJ does not challenge, and obviously accepts as “Facts” the many other points I make in my post, such as:

*The Catholic Church has a successful procreation policy that is a “model” for proliferation of our population.
*The “Open Borders” policy of the United States is in response to lack of domestic population growth
*Men & Women “coupling” produces children at a fluctuating but numerical birthrate.
*Men & Men “coupling” produces a birth rate of zero.
*A Husband & Wife as a family unit is the preferred model & method of “rearing” children.
*The US Federal Govt. gives tax breaks to “Married Men & Women” to subsidize the growth of families.

I’ll quickly address each one. The Catholic Church is not a good “model”, see the earlier point about the divorce rate. I’m not sure what the “Open Borders” policy of the US is, especially with the debate about Illegal Immigration raging in Congress, nor does it have bearing on this argument in this stated form. Men and Women are biologically capable of producing children, and two men cannot do this, this is a scientific truth. A husband and wife who are not abusive, do not do drugs, attend to their children, and are able to financially support their children is a good method of rearing children. So are two loving partners who fit the same profile, regardless of gender. So is a single mother who loves her children. Preferred isn’t an absolute. For the final point, see the above argument about the early 1900’s tax codes.

To summarize, STD believes that tax breaks should only be given to heterosexual couples because they are able to create children, and children produce new tax payers. He ignores gay adoption, divorce rates, infertile/unwilling couples, Social Security/Medicare crisis, and the existence of the child tax credit. [Some of these arguments are in my original post.]

One last note. STD believes that he has been attacked and called a liar because I found fault with his arguments:

I believe accusing someone of using “fallacies” is a fancy way of calling them a liar, is it not?

No, it isn’t. A simple dictionary search would have saved STD from appearing uninformed and inexperienced. STD also appears to be unable to separate his argument from his ego and feels that attacking one also attacks the other. STD hasn’t lied at all. My point in my earlier post was that he masquerades conjecture as fact, an all too common habit in blogs, both right and left.

I’m a stickler for checking my facts (or offering a disclaimer/question if I don’t have a source or am not sure of my assumption) and presenting the best argument I can that is valid and lacks the standard fallacies. In many political blogs, we see conjecture and suspicion masquerade as fact. An example is from Spank that Donkey, a Republican political blog.

STD argues procreation as the reason to amend state/federal constitutions to protect traditional marriage. Many Republicans (blogs or pundits) have abandoned the procreation argument because it has a lot of holes in it. There are plenty of posts elsewhere, so I won’t address the argument in general, just three of STD’s specific arguments.

First, an incorrect fact that could be checked with an easy phone call or google search:

Seriously, there are plenty of cases now where poor grandma and grandpa die, but it goes unreported because the Social Security checks quit coming… It’s probably why Gubment wants us all in nursing homes, so they can verify when we check out.

Social Security is notified both by the funeral home and when the death certificate is filed (also by the funeral home). When my father died last year, this notification was performed within 48 hours of his death. He also offers no argument here that supports a governmental desire to place all aging citizens in nursing homes. The argument could be put forward that with the medicare/medicaid crisis, this statement is false.

Second, STD makes an argument that fails due to the fallacy of Special Pleading:

Now couple this with the college kids who all of a sudden decide to get married… Bob, Brian, Tracey, and Tonya get married (supposedly to each other), share the same two bedroom apartment, but not the same bedrooms. They get the tax break while still avoiding the actual “entanglement of marriage” because there is no love in either relationship. Divorces are not handled like business deals, you know because of that “Love Thing”. I’m not saying this will become rampant, but if it will save a couple thousand dollars a year for college students do you think it is going to happen?

Even though he isn’t exactly clear here, his argument is that the two men in this example will marry for a tax break. He doesn’t recognize that in this same argument, Bob and Tracey could do the same thing. Does he accept the latter? STD also doesn’t account for existing marriages of convenience: older citizens who marry after their spouses have passed on, or a citizen who will marry a non-citizen for the specific purpose of providing a gateway to citizenship. In addition, a gay man can marry a lesbian woman today to gain the tax break. This is currently legal and assumed to occur. He puts forth a limited situation and cries foul.

STD makes another statement in which he offers no support:

Really the bottom line is that “same sex marriage” is a “Lifestyle” choice period.

In no manner does STD make any argument to support this statement. He is neither an expert nor does he list a credible source. He is also not gay, so this dilutes his argument more.

If we are to have a discussion, we need people on both sides who can put forward a decent argument. I think many of the arguments against civil unions/gay marriage can be defended. The trick is to find bloggers/pundits who can present these arguments without opinion and conjecture.

Gays and Lesbians deserve civil unions when they stop holding parades.

[Disclaimer: I'm not very much up on Christianity. My partner is a Buddhist and I'm not really anything. It should be noted that my partner is a strict defender of the silent Christians who don't subscribe to the homosexuals bad" mentality."]

Cville has a wonderful open mall and since I was early for the Democratic Rally, I walked down to the mall hoping for a Waldo sighting. Along the way, a nice man handed me a book. I love books so this was a happy thing for me, but then I noticed that he handed me a copy of the New Testament. I’m not one to read the second in a series, so I asked him why he only handed out the New Testament.

I learned that many Christians believe that when Jesus Christ came, he invalidated the Old Testament. Another thing I learned is that little pocket versions of the New Testament don’t come with an index. When I turned to the back to look for one, the man asked me what I was looking for. I told him I was searching for the section of the Bible that dealt with homosexuality, particularly the section that calls homosexuality an “abomination”.

It seems this is in Leviticus, which is in the Old Testament, is where the term abomination is. The New Testament does have references to homosexuality as well. An example is Timothy 1:9-10:

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”

The important point about this is that the argument that is used most often is that Leviticus prohibited a lot of crazy things like planting two crops in the same field. However, it is a good rebuttal against people who claim that homosexuality is an “abomination” as I can’t find that term describing homosexuals in the New Testament.

What I wonder about is the true nature of Christianity. The guy I was talking said he had nothing against homosexuals as God made all of us in his image and the only way a Christina can be against homosexuality is if they believe it’s a choice and not the way gays were made. I think an overwhelming majority of gays (basically, the minority are the ex-gays) think it’s incredible for people to believe we choose homosexuality. Yeah, we like being second class citizens and getting our asses kicked in high school or the chance of being beaten by gay-bashers in adulthood. It doesn’t make sense if thought about logically.

Some have put forth that allowing gay-marriage or even civil unions would destroy christian free speech, though they don’t provide proof, just scare tactic remarks that have no basis in reality. Free speech isn’t taken by allowing equal rights; it’s furthered. And sanctity of marriage? Britney Spears and 50% divorce rate.
While I respect your right to disapprove of my sexuality, and even attack me for who I love, don’t ask me to support your religious views or pretend that you’re not a hypocrite for ignoring some parts (love the sinner, hate the sin; judge not) and harping on others (abomination). I also don’t respect those that hide their bigotry behind God instead of taking responsibility for their views.

I also question the silent Christians who won’t speak out against Dobson or Robertson publicly. Your religious association paints you with the same brush and you don’t appear to dispute the hate spouted by these “religious leaders”. Silence denotes consent.

Speaking of painted with the same brush, the GLBT community isn’t helping. I’m going to be honest here with a very unpopular opinion. I disagree with pride marches and drag queens (don’t confuse that with transgender). Many of us gays want to live our lives in relative peace, make a home with the person we love, work, and go to school without needing to march, rally, or put rainbow flags on our cars. And we need to speak out as the silent majority (yes, we are the majority).

We are responsible for showing that we’re just like the majority of Americans in that we just want the opportunity to be successful in our lives, safe in our communities, and respected for the content of our character and not who we love. Gays and lesbians provide nurturing, healthy families for children and pass along tolerance for other cultures and views to our children (adopted or by blood). We are family members, friends, neighbors, politicians, and good citizens. We are members of your church, schools, and civic organizations. Just as it’s time for tolerant Christians to become to dominate voice, it’s time for mainstream gays to become the loudest representation of the gay community.
Republitarian, Nova Town Hall, Chaun Kenney, Deo Vendice, and others: God loves gaysand lesbians as his children, why can’t you accept us?

The Marshall/Newman Amendment.

[Note: I was originally going to just explore the amendment, but some recent postings in the Republican blogosphere need to be addressed.]

First, the text of the amendment:

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

There are plenty of sites that examine the amendment, the best are the Commonwealth Coalition for the opponents and VA4Marriage for the proponents. Both of these sites can provide the range of reasons for and against the amendment. I want to cherry-pick a few arguments for the amendment to discuss.

Proponent Arguments against gay marriage:

One argument is “for the children”. As VA4Marriage says:

The most important reason to protect traditional marriage is for the well being of children. Traditional marriage provides the most stable and nurturing environment for the raising and education of children. A plethora of studies show that children benefit emotionally, physically, economically and educationally in a traditional, two-parent home.

The argument here isn’t that a heterosexual, married couple can raise a healthy child, only that children benefit from it–this isn’t to say that the argument that only heterosexual couples can raise children correctly hasn’t been put forth, but that opens the door to the divorce rate argument. I agree that children benefit from two parents, but I don’t agree that parental gender makes a difference.

Argument two is “this is the way it’s always been.” Except, we should recognize that this may be the way it’s always been in Christianity, but other cultures as well as times before Christianity hold this as untrue (yes Virginia, Christianity is a relatively new idea in the history of mankind). As Va4marriage says:

va4marriage.org’s position regarding homosexuality is founded on traditional worldviews from the basic concepts of Western Civilization. We are committed to the time-tested, common-sense parameters for sexual relationships as monogamous, lifelong, heterosexual unions

This begs two questions:

1. Who forgot to do their homework about “Western Civilization”? The Native Americans, as well as other Western and Eastern cultures accept and in some cases revere homosexuals.
2. Where is the same argument against divorce on va4marriage.org? Generally, where is the public outrage against divorce, with rates approaching 50% and quickie marriages all the rage in Las Vegas?

The third argument is the destruction of marriage, though I have yet to see one person give an example of how their marriage was affected by gay marriage. The MA marriage amendment died simply because legislators realized that the world had not ended.
Proponent arguments for the marriage amendment:

Here we go.

…homosexual activists are seeking to destabilize marriage.

Activist judges, activist judges, activist judges, rinse, repeat. As I pointed out in earlier parts, judicial activism depends on which side you’re on. (Part one, part two, part three).

We already have laws against gay marriage and civil unions, this amendment only prohibits state judges from overturning those laws (based on the fact that they create a separate class of people).
General arguments on the subject:

A further argument that “From On High” put forward was that everyone is equal in current marriage laws; being that everyone can marry an opposite sex partner. I agree, we are all equal in this. However, the inequality comes into the fact that we are not all equal to marry the person we wish to marry. For heterosexuals, the partner they wish will be opposite sex, equal under the law. For homosexuals, that person will be same sex, and thus prohibited. The inequality is the fact that state law condones one person’s relationship and prohibits anothers.

If we’re going to speak of equality, lets take into account the differences between hetero- and homo- sexuals when we talk about it. Would these Christians feel the same way if the law said people can only attend the Catholic church. Then yes, we would all be equal under the law, but probably would not be very fair to protestants.

Follow-up questions:

I would ask that proponents of the amendment provide their reasons and if possible provide answers to the following questions:

1. Are you against homosexuality in general? If so, provide reasons.
2. Can you provide a possible scenario in which allowing same-sex couples to marry would harm traditional marriage?
3. Do you see this bill as pro traditional marriage or anti-gay marriage?
4. Do you have any gay or lesbian friends or family? Are they aware of your views? How do you reconcile this with your friends or family?
5. Do you believe gay marriage or divorce is a greater threat to traditional marriage?
6. What are your feelings on divorce? Have you been divorced?
7. What is your religion?
8. Are you married?
9. Do you feel there are negative consequences for unmarried heterosexual couples that could come from this amendment.
10. Any general thoughts you might have.

I’m providing an open forum here for these responses from readers, politicians, and other bloggers. I ask that it be open discourse and will delete or edit any posts that attack the person and not the argument (attacks on homosexuality are allowed as long as it’s justified and not gratuitous gay bashing).