Black Religious Leaders Slam NAACP Homosexual Agenda: Folks Weep at 'Horrors of this Holocaust'

At Charisma News, "Black Leaders Decry NAACP Endorsement of Homosexual Agenda" (via Memeorandum):

Alveda C. King is among the growing number of African-American leaders speaking out about President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage.

Specifically, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. is joining black spiritual leaders in decrying the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP’s, move to give a nod to gay marriage in the United States.

The NAACP released a resolution on May 19 supporting marriage equality. At a meeting of the 103-year old civil rights group’s board of directors, the organization voted to support marriage equality as a continuation of its historic commitment to equal protection under the law.

In recent years the NAACP has taken public positions against state and federal efforts to ban the rights and privileges for LGBT citizens, including strong opposition to Proposition 8 in California, the Defense of Marriage Act and, most recently, North Carolina’s Amendment 1, which changed the state constitution’s to prohibit same sex marriage.

“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people,” said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP.

“Neither my great-grandfather, an NAACP founder, my grandfather Dr. Martin Luther King Sr., an NAACP leader, my father Rev. A. D. Williams King, nor my uncle Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. embraced the homosexual agenda that the current NAACP is attempting to label as a civil rights agenda,” says King, founder of King for America and Pastoral Associate for Priests for Life.

“In the 21st century, the anti-traditional marriage community is in league with the anti-life community, and together with the NAACP and other sympathizers, they are seeking a world where homosexual marriage and abortion will supposedly set the captives free.”

Exactly.

And keep reading for that "horrors of this holocaust" quote.

Polygamy: The Next Frontier After Homosexual Marriage

I can recall people attacking me as "homophobic" and probably racist years ago for suggesting that homosexual marriage would open the doors to polygamy, and then after that God knows what. But now that we've seen a surge in public support for same-sex marriage, it's not so uncouth to talk about other types of marriage arrangements. Indeed, it's apparently pretty cool to consider the possibilities, if this story at the New York Times is a worthy guide.

See, "Polygamy as Lifestyle Choice, and a Reality TV Brand":

LAS VEGAS — Kody Brown, his four wives and 17 children want to be the new face of polygamy, what some consider the next frontier after same-sex marriage.

That is why, the Browns say, they invited TLC television cameras into their homes for their reality show “Sister Wives,” why they have written a best-selling book about their lives, and why they challenged Utah’s polygamy ban in federal court.

Fear of prosecution under that law led them to flee to Nevada. Last month, a federal judge partly overturned the ban, ruling that prohibiting “cohabitation” violates the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion.

In their first interview since the decision in that case, they presented a family whose polygamy is more “Father Knows Best” than fundamentalist patriarchy. It was also clear that going public opened a path toward wealth.

Their four new houses arranged on a Las Vegas cul-de-sac and their television handler are testament to the fact that the Browns, who once fought penury, have turned their cause into a minor industry.

They promote their family arrangement as part of a growing wave of individual lifestyle choices, managing to anger both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which abandoned polygamy in 1890, and to some extent their own Mormon fundamentalist offshoot, the Apostolic United Brethren.

Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for the mainstream church, said polygamists, “including those in reality television programs,” have “no affiliation whatsoever” with the church, “despite the fact that the term ‘Mormon’ is sometimes misleadingly applied to them.” Of the lawsuit, he said, “The current legal efforts will have no bearing on the doctrines or practices of the church.”

As for the Browns’ own church, it promotes polygamy but does not condone homosexuality, and its leaders have quietly suggested that they are uncomfortable with the way the decision in the Browns’ lawsuit has been held up by some same-sex marriage advocates as supporting the underlying issue of personal privacy.

Having attained a measure of celebrity, the Browns find that people seek out their homes and stop them on the street, expecting hugs. While the familiarity can be unsettling, Robyn, one of the wives, said, it means “they saw us as a family, and that’s huge.” Others, however, sharply criticize them in online forums for exposing their children to the prying cameras of reality television, among other perceived offenses.

They have also been put off by the avid interest in the specifics of their intimate lives and the questions they get. They do not “go weird” in the bedroom, as Meri, another wife, has put it; their sexual relations are separate. “These are wholesome, individual marriages,” Robyn said. “It’s actually pretty boring.”

A recent afternoon with the family here suggested that Mr. Brown is far from the domineering figure of past polygamy horror stories like Warren Jeffs, the leader of another fundamentalist group who is serving a life sentence for child sexual abuse. Mr. Brown comes off more as a beleaguered sitcom father facing the challenges of scheduling family time split 21 ways.

Children wandered among the homes, forming random groupings in a kind of Brownian motion, playing, talking and making a companionable racket. Truely, a girl born in 2010, padded around the living room with a toy cellphone to her ear, arguing earnestly with an imaginary friend on the other end of the line: “You’ve got to understand.”

Robyn, who brought three children from an earlier marriage into the family, was nursing her child Solomon, born in 2011. Sprawled nearby were older children, some now in college...

Continue reading.

My wife watched this show sometime last year. Me, I'm not all that interested. At this point society's becoming extremely unmoored from traditional values and the importance of monogamous heterosexual marriage as the foundation of decent society. (Christianity takes monogamous marriage as foundational to its teachings. And checking around online this Yahoo answers page has a good discussion on the importance of monogamy in Biblical teaching, "When did Marriage in the Bible change from polygamous to monogamous?")

New York 5th Grader Kameron Slade Now Allowed to Give Speech on Homosexual Marriage

Here's the report from last night, "NY1 Exclusive: School Prohibits Fifth-Grader From Giving Speech On Same-Sex Marriage."

And here's the update at DNAinfo, "Fifth Grader Allowed to Give Same-Sex Marriage Speech, Walcott says." Also at New York Post, "Walcott: student has right to read gay nups essay but not everyone has to hear it."

Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott said a Queens fifth-grader barred from reading his essay on gay marriage in front of the entire school “has the right” to present it — but not everyone has to hear it.

Walcott refused to say whether he supports PS 195 principal Berryl Bailey’s controversial decision to bar 10-year-old Kameron Slade from giving a speech on the issue yesterday.

Only after media inquiries did the Department of Education say that Slade could read his essay in a makeshift assembly scheduled for Monday — but that parents could opt their kids out.

“It’s something that the principal felt that she needed to do more due diligence with her parent community because of the topic of the speech itself,” said Walcott. “This extra day will give her the ability to reach out to those parents to make them aware of the content of the speech — because we’re talking about an elementary school.”

And if you ever doubted that progressives couldn't give a shit about the welfare of children or the rights of parents to raise their kids as they see fit, check the commentary at The New Civil Rights Movement:

Public schools, like all institutions of learning, are supposed to teach facts and relevant topics. Same-sex marriage is not pornography. Same-sex marriage has been in the news in New York for the past few years, especially leading up to its legalization one year ago. Parents should take an interest in their children’s learning, and support the schools’ efforts to teach. Schools need to recognize that for students to learn about equality, they have to start teaching it.

Since when do parents get to decide what public school curriculums teach? If a majority of parents decide they want creationism to be taught instead of evolution, will that become part of a school’s curriculum? What about climate change? Or, the latest David Barton lies? Where does it end?

Public schools are funded by the "parents," so obviously the "parents" have a right to help decide what will be taught in those schools. And obviously, teaching about homosexuality --- or homosexual marriage --- isn't a question of "equality." Current laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and same-sex marriage is not a civil right. But the radical homosexual lobby is all about demonizing people who hold traditional values, so they'll viciously attack folks who might just be a little bit concerned that their 11 year-old kids might not be ready for such a sophisticated, confusing, and political-charged topic as this. But again, the radical gay from couldn't give a flying f-k. They just don't.

See more commentary at Memeorandum.

Gay Marriage and Young Republicans

Meghan McCain's in the news again with her comments on gay marriage and the GOP. According to Ms. McCain, for "progressive" Republicans, the gay marriage issue is "about reaching a wider base and redefining what it means to be Republican, and leaving labels, stereotypes, and negativity by the wayside."

Read the whole thing, here. Ms. McCain argues that Ronald Reagan, in 1978, championed gay rights during a California initiative battle what would have prevented gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools.

The problem for Ms. McCain, and other advocates of same-sex marriage, is that Americans do not hold discriminatory views of homosexuals. Polls repeatedly find widespread support for the extension of equal protections to gay Americans. The problem is not the extension of rights to same-sex couples per se, but the redefinition of marriage itself. And huge majorities are opposed to changing the historical conception of society's normative tradition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Much of the meme on the left (alleging conservative bigotry) is in fact progressive totalitarianism and intolerance toward the traditional culture. That's why so many regular folks get turned off by the debate: They are hesitant to wade into the culture wars for fear of being attacked and browbeaten as homophobic when they are anything but.

Interestingly, Kristen Soltis, at The Next Right, finds some empirical support for Ms. McCain's argument on gay marriage and young Republicans. But a careful look at numbers offered by Soltis, drawn from the General Social Survey, reveals that youth voters are not all that sold on the acceptablility of homosexual relations, much less gay marriage:

I recently completed research on the topic of young voters and the GOP: where the Republican Party is losing young voters, how serious the threat is to the party, and how the Republican Party should respond. And on this point, Ms. McCain has it right - the issue of gay marriage is one on which young voters and the Republican Party diverge significantly ....

Yet issues relating to homosexuality find vast differences between the young and older voters. In terms of the issue of whether or not homosexual sex is wrong, 44.3% of respondents to the General Social Survey 18-34 believe it is "never wrong" compared to 33.5% of respondents overall. Furthermore, 47.3% of respondents 18-34 said homosexual sex was "always wrong" compared to 55.6% of respondents overall.

Eh, hello? "47.3% of respondents 18-34 said homosexual sex was "always wrong ..."

That statistic sticks out like a sore thumb. This is 2008 data. If nearly half of those 18-34 think that homosexual intercourse is always wrong, it's not a particularly robust statement on youth support for gay rights, much less same-sex marriage. Futher, for all the talk of society moving toward more acceptance of gay lifestyles, that's got to be a troublesome statistics for the radical homosexual activists. Indeed, numbers like these explain precisely why the gay nihilists browbeat tradtionalists into submission: Radical leftists know that their agenda violates the deepest sense of social propriety, and so they must portray traditionalists as bigots and religious "extremists" to make the sale for their own licentiousness.

I just checked Google for my post from January on the radical gay of the political left: "Gay Activists Plan Obama Inaugural Celebrations." At that entry I discussed the inaugural celebrations among gay activist groups, which included the deployment of "rimming stations" by those celebrating at the Doubletree Hotel in Washington. But note that a Google search for "rimming station gay" pulls up all kind of links to gay male sexual pornography. With all due respect to Meghan McCain, I seriously doubt these are the kind of "moderate conservative" views the GOP should be pushing. Or, at least, a look at young gay lifestyles reveals anything but a socially conservative outlook, and I'd wager Ronald Reagan would roll over in the grave at the thought of it.

Besides, as gay conservative Charles Winecoff argued recently, the gay rights agenda is really not about "inclusion" or "full acceptance." It's about social revolution:

Eight years after 9/11, the LGBT community gets its activism fix by indulging in nostalgic, anti-establishment indignation over petty domestic slights. Ganging up on an annoying little old lady carrying a cross at a Prop 8 rally satisfies the itch between workouts and White Parties. But wouldn’t it be genuinely awe inspiring to see masses of musclebound gay men taking on, say, a congregation of homophobic Islamic “thinkers” (who, BTW, love the idea of pushing gay men off cliffs to their death)? ....

Civil unions already offer gay couples the same basic legal status as married couples in several states, including California (and they’re a lot easier to get). But as a result of the gay community’s mass hissy fit to usurp marriage, the religious right has been re-ignited in its holy war against legal recognition of any gay relationships at all ....

40 years after the Stonewall Riots, it’s time for the LGBT community to reconnect with what made us rebel in the first place: the right to live not as conformist dhimmis, but as social, intellectual, and artistic pioneers. Instead of stirring up resentment trying to snatch a piece of a stale pie we don’t really need - and setting back our cause in the process - we need to keep moving forward, not “separate but equal,” but different and equal.

There's a lot to think about for the GOP in acceding to the demands of "progressive" Republicans for a wholesale cultural change that is nowhere near supported by a majority of Americans. Not only that, the youth demographic is open to political persuasion toward more conservative ideals on lifestyle and families.

There's been some talk lately of the formation of third political party, which would in effect be a splinter movement breaking away from today's GOP. So far that chatter's been associated with the Tea Party protests springing up around the country, but if the national Republican Party capitulates to the Megan McCain's and David Frums, it's not unlikely that the push for a new conservative party outside of the traditional two-party system would pick up even more steam.

**********

Related: Gay Patriot looks at the same data from Next Right, and then adds:

I don’t think the GOP need be pro-gay marriage to win the youth vote. I do think it needs [to] offer a vision of choice and opportunity to contrast the Democrats’ preference for government solutions and one-size-fits-all approaches.

That said, I think the best path for the party would be take a more neutral stand on gay marriage and favor a state-by-state approach, consistent with the federalist principles which once undergirded the GOP.

It's interesting that had Iowa taken the "federalist" route this last week, we would not have seen the approval of same-sex marriage in that state.

Echoes of Roe v. Wade in Supreme Court's Homosexual Marriage Cases

The best outcome will see the Court upholding California's Proposition 8 but simultaneously striking down the federal government's DOMA. That result will send homosexual marriage back to the states, with the will of the voters (as in California in 2008), where it belongs.

I'll have more, in any case, but see the New York Times, "Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage":

WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court hears a pair of cases on same-sex marriage on Tuesday and Wednesday, the justices will be working in the shadow of a 40-year-old decision on another subject entirely: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion.

Judges, lawyers and scholars have drawn varying lessons from that decision, with some saying that it was needlessly rash and created a culture war.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal and a champion of women’s rights, has long harbored doubts about the ruling.

“It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast,” she said last year at Columbia Law School.

Briefs from opponents of same-sex marriage, including one from 17 states, are studded with references to the aftermath of the abortion decision and to Justice Ginsburg’s critiques of it. They say the lesson from the Roe decision is that states should be allowed to work out delicate matters like abortion and same-sex marriage for themselves.

“They thought they were resolving a contentious issue by taking it out of the political process but ended up perpetuating it,” John C. Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and a law professor at Chapman University, said of the justices who decided the abortion case. “The lesson they should draw is that when you are moving beyond the clear command of the Constitution, you should be very hesitant about shutting down a political debate.”

Justice Ginsburg has suggested that the Supreme Court in 1973 should have struck down only the restrictive Texas abortion law before it and left broader questions for another day. The analogous approach four decades later would be to strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage but leave in place prohibitions in about 40 other states.

But Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for the two couples challenging California’s ban, said the Roe ruling was a different case on a different subject and arose in a different political and social context. The decision was “a bolt out of the blue,” he said, and it had not been “subject to exhaustive public discussion, debate and support, including by the president and other high-ranking government officials from both parties.”

“Roe was written in a way that allowed its critics to argue that the court was creating out of whole cloth a brand new constitutional right,” Mr. Boutrous said. “But recognition of the fundamental constitutional right to marry dates back over a century, and the Supreme Court has already paved the way for marriage equality by deciding two landmark decisions protecting gay citizens from discrimination.”

RTWT.

If You're Traditional, You'll Be Attacked as 'Bigoted' No Matter What

I long ago stopped trying to be cordial with progressives online. It doesn't matter what you do or say, progressives will always adopt the fall back position that you are a bigot. Let them whine all they want. The fact is it's the left that's the disgustingly bigoted and racist, which is made even worse by the progressive hypocrisy.

Here's an interesting post at the communist Crooked Timber, from idiot John Holbo, "Another Pro Same-Sex Marriage Argument."

Defenders of ‘traditional marriage’ insist 1) that their position is, well … traditional; wisdom of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the history of Western Civilization, etc. etc.; 2) they are not bigots. They are tolerant of homosexuality, and the rights of homosexuals, etc. etc. Maybe they watch the occasional episode of “Will and Grace”, in syndication (even if they didn’t watch it back when it started.) They are careful to distance themselves from those Westboro Baptist Church lunatics, for example.

It’s gotten to the point where one of the main, mainstream arguments against same-sex marriage is that legalizing it would amount to implying that those opposing it are bigots. Since they are not just bigots (see above), anything that would make them seem like bigots must be wrong. Ergo, approving same-sex marriage would be a mistake. Certainly striking down opposition to it as ‘lacking a rational basis’ would be a gross moral insult to non-bigoted opponents of same-same marriage.

Continue reading.

You see, the "new" arguments against homosexual marriage are supposedly not bigoted, according to traditionalists. But since the so-called "new" arguments are really the same as the "old" bigoted arguments against homosexual marriage, traditionalists are still bigots just the same, or something.

The argument's not going over too well in the comments.

Either way. Folks I talk to are tolerant of homosexuality. They just don't like homosexuals re-engineering the entire culture to essentially criminalize traditional values. It's not going to get better if the Court makes a broad ruling on same-sex marriage, but we'll see.

PHOTO CREDIT: From the depraved homosexuals at Think Progress, "Why Marriage Equality Opponents Who ‘Love’ Gays Are Still Bigoted." Because no matter what you do or say, you'll still be attack as a "bigot."

Supreme Court Justices View Homosexual Marriage with Doubt

Well, oral arguments aren't a particularly good predictor of how the Court will rule.

And Justice Anthony Kennedy's the flaming leftist who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which many observers claimed foreshadowed a Court ruling establishing a right to same-sex nuptials.

So, while I take this with some skepticism, it's nevertheless pretty ticklish how the homosexual rights attorneys got all beat up during the arguments yesterday. It's good to keep the leftist ghouls guessing. They've been freakin' aggressive with entitlement this last few years. Damn.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Court weighs gay marriage; Justice Kennedy unexpectedly expresses doubt":

Gay rights lawyers went to the Supreme Court hoping to find a majority of justices ready to support a historic ruling that would declare same-sex couples had an equal right to marry nationwide.

Instead during Tuesday’s arguments, they heard words of hesitation that suggested the outcome is less certain than many expected.

The most important and surprising doubts came almost immediately from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who openly wondered whether the court should intervene in an institution so deeply rooted in history and religion.

The word that keeps coming back to me is millennia,” Kennedy said in the opening minutes of a 2 1/2-hour argument, prompting looks of concern from gay rights attorneys.

Kennedy’s apparent struggle over what is perhaps the court’s most important civil rights question in a generation was welcomed by state attorneys opposing gay marriage and by his four fellow conservative justices. They emphasized that marriage has been limited throughout American history to a man and a woman, and that the issue is better left to voters at the state level, rather than to federal judges.

Despite his comments, Kennedy — who will probably have the deciding vote — may still rule in favor of marriage rights for same-sex couples when the court announces its decision in June. Kennedy in the past had similarly voiced doubts during an argument, only to discard them when the time came to make a decision.

More important, Kennedy has written the court’s three important rulings in favor of gay rights, including an opinion two years ago that spoke glowingly of the “equal dignity” of same-sex couples who had married. It was that decision that led to a string of rulings by federal courts over the last year that invalidated states’ same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional.

To the relief of gay rights advocates, Kennedy later in Tuesday’s argument returned to some of his more familiar themes about equality and at one point chided a Michigan state lawyer for insisting that marriage was chiefly about biology and procreation, and not recognizing the dignity derived from being in a committed couple.

“Same-sex couples say, 'Of course, we understand the nobility and sacredness of the marriage. We know we can’t procreate, but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we too have a dignity that can be fulfilled,’” Kennedy said.

With an estimated 250,000 children that are being raised by same-sex couples across the nation, Kennedy also questioned the harm same-sex marriage bans have on such families.

Kennedy’s colleagues seemed less ambivalent about the question before them.

The court’s four most conservative justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., left little doubt they would vote to uphold the state bans on same-sex marriage. Roberts said gay rights proponents were seeking to redefine marriage.

“You're not seeking to join the institution,” he told attorney Mary L. Bonauto, who is representing two Michigan nurses who have been unable to marry and jointly adopt the four abandoned foster children they are raising. “You're seeking to change what the institution is.”

Roberts also warned that a ruling from the high court at this time would prematurely shut down the national debate over the issue.

But Bonauto emphasized that the rights of gays and lesbians were being compromised in many states and that it was unfair to tell gay couples to “wait and see.”

The four liberal justices said they saw no valid legal justification to deny marriage to same-sex couples, questioning how such recognition would harm heterosexual marriage.

“We are not taking anyone’s liberty away” by allowing gay couples to marry, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

They attacked the argument that marriage is intended chiefly to encourage child-rearing, and noted that many heterosexual spouses do not have children and a growing number of same-sex couples do, either through adoption or surrogacy.


Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the court had repeatedly ruled that Americans have a fundamental right to marry, and he questioned whether “purely religious reasons” can justify a ban on same-sex marriage.

“There is one group of people whom [some states] won't open marriage to,” Breyer said. “So they have no possibility to participate in that fundamental liberty. That is people of the same sex who wish to marry. And so we ask, why? And the answer we get is, ‘Well, people have always done it.’ You know, you could have answered that one the same way we talk about racial segregation.”

More.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Newsweek ramps-up the gay marriage debate with its cover story this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage."

The piece starts with numerous examples of Biblical figures whose manners of living were diametrically opposed to what today's religious conservatives would champion as an appropriate traditional lifestyle for society: For example, "Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists."

Read the essay. The problem I see is the author argues an exclusively literalist case against faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage, when in fact most Americans would more likely argue an essentialist religious foundation against gay marriage, one that sees religious tradition - rather than literal prophetic realism - as the basis for an ethics privileging heterosexual marriage.

Here's how Newsweek paints religious literalism as a straw man in favor of a more holistic religious acceptance of same-sex marriage:

As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

As I have argued many times here, the case for an expansive religious interpretation of a homosexual right to marry was rejected decisively at the polls this year, and Newsweek's own poll that accompanies this article found only 31 percent of Americans in favor full-blown marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

But we can leave all of that aside for the moment, since the increasing secularism in American society seems like a steamroller at times, and its proponents have no qualms of adopting Soviet-style show-trial tactics to dehumanize those who suppor the majoritarian political process.

The fact is, conservatives may have to battle gay rights advocates on the secular battlefield, as contentious cultural issues like this are essentially uncompromising for people of faith.

Susan Shell, in a masterpiece of an article, "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage," lays out a classical and secular liberal case against gay marriage ("liberal" is used here in the Lockean form, with a stress on "liberty of rights," not "liberal" as used to describe the American left).

The core of Shell's argument is that marriage historically is recognized as a practice that his essentially procreative and regenerative. Not all couples bear children, but the institution's social foundation is anchored in the elevation of the basic biological union of spouses, and it is protected under the law as available to only one man and one woman, as a matter of civil principle. Shell argues, for example, marriage should only be available for the regenerative union of spouses in the ideal, as funerals are in fact only available to the dead:

When considering the institution of marriage, a useful comparison exists between how society addresses the beginning and end of human life. Like death, our relation to which is shaped and challenged but not effaced by modern technologies, generation defines our human nature, both in obvious ways and in ways difficult to fathom fully. As long as this is so, there is a special place for marriage understood as it has always been understood. That is to say, there is a need for society to recognize that human generation and its claims are an irreducible feature of the human experience.

Like the rites and practices surrounding death, marriage invests a powerful, universally shared experience with the norms and purposes of a given society. Even when couples do not "marry," as is increasingly becoming the case in parts of western Europe, they still form socially recognized partnerships that constitute a kind of marriage. If marriage in a formal sense is abolished, it will not disappear, but it will no longer perform this task so well.

A similar constraint applies to death. A society could abolish "funerals" as heretofore understood and simply call them "parties," or allow individuals to define them as they wish. Were the "liberationist" exaltation of individual choice pushed to its logical conclusion, would not a public definition of "funeral" as a rite in honor of the dead appear just as invidious as a public definition of "marriage" as an enduring sexual partnership between a man and woman? If it is discriminatory to deny gay couples the right to "marry," is it not equally unfair to deny living individuals the right to attend their own "funerals"? If it makes individuals happy, some would reply, what is the harm? Only that a society without the means of formally acknowledging, through marriage, the fact of generation, like one without the means of formally acknowledging, through funeral rites, the fact of death, seems impoverished in the most basic of human terms.

Like generation, death has a "public face" so obvious that we hardly think of it. The state issues death certificates and otherwise defines death legally. It recognizes funeral attendance as a legal excuse in certain contexts, such as jury duty. It also regulates the treatment of corpses, which may not merely be disposed of like any ordinary animal waste. Many states afford funeral corteges special privileges not enjoyed by ordinary motorists. Funeral parlors are strictly regulated, and there are limits on the purchase and destruction of cemeteries that do not apply to ordinary real estate. In short, there are a number of ways in which a liberal democratic government, as a matter of course, both acknowledges "death" and limits the funereal rites and practices of particular sects and individuals. I cannot call a party in my honor my "funeral" and expect the same public respect and deference afforded genuine rites for the dead. And it would be a grim society indeed that allowed people to treat the dead any old which way--as human lampshades, for example.

Once one grants that the link between marriage and generation may approach, in its universality and solemn significance, the link between funereal practices and death, the question of gay marriage appears in a new light. It is not that marriages are necessarily devoted to the having and rearing of children, nor that infertility need be an impediment to marriage (as is still the case for some religious groups). This country has never legally insisted that the existence of marriage depends upon "consummation" in a potentially procreative act. It is, rather, that marriage, in all the diversity of its forms, draws on a model of partnership rooted in human generation. But for that fact, marriages would be indistinguishable from partnerships of a variety of kinds. The peculiar intimacy, reciprocity, and relative permanence of marriage reflect a genealogy that is more than merely historical.

Seen in this light, the issue of gay marriage can be reduced to the following question: Is the desired union between homosexuals more like a marriage between infertile heterosexuals, unions that draw ultimate psychological and moral sustenance (at least symbolically) from the experience of human generation; or is it more like insistence on attending one's own funeral--a funeral, one might say, existing in name only? This question is not easily answered. Progress can be made, however, by attending to the stated goals of most gay marriage advocates.

Someone who is living cannot attend their own funeral, and thus, according to this logic, someone who is gay cannot attend their own marriage, as marriage has been historically constituted heterosexually in law and culture.

But Shell adds another paragraph indicating the likely backlash militant homosexuals will engender through their hardcore gay marriage advocacy:

American citizens should not have the sectarian beliefs of gay-marriage advocates imposed on them unwillingly. If proponents of gay marriage seek certain privileges of marriage, such as legal support for mutual aid and childbearing, there may well be no liberal reason to deny it to them. But if they also seek positive public celebration of homosexuality as such, then that desire must be disappointed. The requirement that homosexual attachments be publicly recognized as no different from, and equally necessary to society as, heterosexual attachments is a fundamentally illiberal demand. Gays cannot be guaranteed all of the experiences open to heterosexuals any more than tall people can be guaranteed all of the experiences open to short people. Least of all can gays be guaranteed all of the experiences that stem from the facts of human sexual reproduction and its accompanying penumbra of pleasures and cares. To insist otherwise is not only psychologically and culturally implausible; it imposes a sectarian moral view on fellow citizens who disagree and who may hold moral beliefs that are diametrically opposed to it.

Keep in mind that Shell argues this point with the acknowlegment that political libertarianism would accord homosexuals the same rights that accrue to traditional couples, such as adoption. And as we saw in the Newsweek survey, on every other gay rights issues outside of marriage equality majorities of Americans are tolerant and expansive in affording full inclusion for same-sex partners.

But the current militant authoritarianism for same-sex marriage rights - which we've seen demonstrated with nauseating clarity in the No on H8 attacks following the passage of California's Yes on 8 initiative - will almost certainly generate the kind of backlash against gay marriage equality that Shell envisions.

So, while there may indeed by a growing generation tolerance for full-blown same-sex marriage equality, the logical extension of full public affirmation of such marriage rights may well create the the kind of reaction capable of setting back the clock on gay rights altogether.

Since When Did 'Homosexual' Become a Bad Word?

I blogged the gay marriage controversy for months following the passage of Proposition 8 last November. With the California Supreme Court's ruling last May, some activists argued for an appeal to the U.S Supreme Court (an unfavorable venue, given the Court's current conservative majority). And just this week gay rights activists submitted a ballot proposal to the Secretary of State's office. A group called "Love Honor Cherish" filed the measure, but other groups have argued that 2010 is too soon for a new gay marriage push. Some fear that a failed campaign could set back the cause.

Meanwhile, voters in Maine, Michigan, and Washington State will have a chance to vote on gay rights initiatives this fall, just one year after the contentious California gay marriage fight. In Maine, it turns out there's a big controversy over at a conservative advertisement that apparently changes an AP news headline to include "homosexual." According to AmericaBlog, "That headline only exists on anti-gay sites. It's not from the Associated Press." The orginal story is here, "Gay Rights Group: Maine Diocese Violating Tax Law. "

It's not immediately clear why the Yes on One campaign would alter the headline for the ad buy. Perhaps "Homosexual Advocacy Group" has more negative connotations than "Gay Right Group." No matter, the campaign should be criticized if they've dishonestly altered an AP report for political purposes.

Having said that, what's even more interesting is the reaction on the left. Darleen Click points us to a Feministing post on the controversy, which includes this blast of hatred:

Truly fighting for equal rights requires a social change and public pressure. Why did textbook companies begin to consciously include photos of students of color in their course materials after the civil rights movement? Because diversity--of ethnicity, of community, and of culture -is the norm, not the exception. The idea of an "other," of a "minority," or even the implication of a same-sex marriage being "non-traditional," alienates and isolates queer individuals and families worldwide.

Teach children about same-sex marriage in schools. Never refer to queer-identified individuals as "homosexuals." Treat churches who refuse to perform same-sex marriages like those who refuse to perform interracial marriages.

But if Maine's Question 1 is defeated, churches will remain the same, school curriculum will retain its heteronormativity, and "homosexuals" will still fear living openly. Maine conservatives have nothing to worry about.

Never refer to individuals as "homosexuals." But in fact, that's what they are. A look over at Wikipedia turns up this straightforward discussion:

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. A homosexual person is sexually and romantically attracted to people of their own gender. Men who are attracted to other men are called "gay." Women who are attracted to other women can be called "gay" as well, but are usually called "lesbians". People who are attracted to men and women are called bisexual. Together homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people make up the "LGBT community." It is difficult to say how many people are homosexual. Homosexuality is known to exist in all cultures and countries, though some governments deny that homosexuality exists in their countries.

That's how I would explain what a "homosexual" is to my own kids. There's nothing discriminatory about it. Perhaps the Yes on One campaign sought to tap into "homosexual" as synonomous with "homo," which is an anti-gay slur. That said, the outrage among gay rights activists is even more cynically exploitative, and pushing "queer" as the acceptable postmodern terminology is bound to alienate traditional families. Certainly families in Maine have a right to be concerned that schools will ram down politically-correct notions of gay marriage as "normal" on children.

More honesty all around would be helpful. But if anything, this battle shows what the gay-rights ayatollahs are all about. Just like last year, anyone of traditional orientation is likely to face Stalinist show trials should they deviate from the radical left's "queer" rights agenda.

What a disgrace.

Next Battlegrounds in Homosexual Marriage

Hey, the Sodomites are just now getting started.

At the New York Times, "Both Sides on Same-Sex Marriage Issue Focus on the Next State Battlegrounds":

With the expected addition of Californians after Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling, some 30 percent of Americans will live in states offering same-sex marriage.

Now the two sides of the marriage wars are gearing up to resume the costly state-by-state battles that could, in the hopes of each, spread marriage equality to several more states in the next few years, or reveal a brick wall of values that cannot be breached. There is wide agreement from both sides on where the next battlefields will be.

Proponents of same-sex marriage were already energized by victories in six states over the last year, bringing the total number authorizing such unions to 12 states, before California, and the District of Columbia. They are hoping for legislative victories this fall or next spring in Illinois and possibly New Jersey and Hawaii.

Twenty-nine states — not including California —have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Some advocates expect that in the November 2014 elections, Oregon and perhaps Nevada or Ohio could become the first states to undo their amendments. At the same time, a court case in New Mexico could extend marriage rights.

These strategists agree they are unlikely to win over more conservative states in the South and the West in the foreseeable future. But, looking at the historical experience with issues like bans on interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court outlawed only in 1967, they feel confident that if equality spreads to more states and public attitudes continue shifting, a future Supreme Court will find that marriage is a right for gay men and lesbians as well as heterosexuals.

“Building a critical mass of states and a critical mass of public support — that’s how social movements succeed,” said Evan Wolfson, the founder of Freedom to Marry. “We’ll pursue this strategy until we finish the job,” he said, “and I think it will be a matter of years, not decades.”

The opponents of same-sex marriage, while unhappy that the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act and opened the door to gay marriage in California, are taking heart that the court did not declare same-sex marriage a constitutional right.

After a recent succession of stinging defeats in Delaware, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Washington State — after political campaigns in which they were heavily outspent — the groups have also vowed to step up fund-raising for advertising and mobilizing supporters.

“These court decisions could be a real boon to our fund-raising,” said Frank Schubert, a conservative political consultant and vice president of the National Organization for Marriage. “People tend to react when the wolf is at the door.”

Well, not just wolves, but jackals, serpents and general pestilence.

The New Yorker's already ramming homosexuality down our children's throats, to say nothing of other bodily parts, "Bert and Ernie's 'Moment of Joy' — The New Yorker's #DOMA Cover."

Equal Footing? Same-Sex Marriage and the Civil Rights Legacy

I discussed California's same-sex marriage ruling in an earlier entry, "The Presidential Politics of Same-Sex Marriage."

The question of whether gays should be legally permitted to marry is far from resolved, and the California Supreme Court has done the country a service by placing a (really) hot-button social issue back on the political agenda.

I don't get too fired up about gay rights issues (gays should be able to serve openly in the armed services, for example). However, I do have a problem placing the quest for homosexual rights on an equal plane as the historic black American freedom struggle.

It turns out that California Chief Justice Ronald George is saying he was influenced in his legal thinking by Jim Crow segregation from the post-bellum South, via the Los Angeles Times:

In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court's historic same-sex marriage ruling Thursday, the decision "weighed most heavily" on Chief Justice Ronald M. George -- more so, he said, than any previous case in his nearly 17 years on the court.

The court was poised 4 to 3 not only to legalize same-sex marriage but also to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went further than any other state high court's and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road.

But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored" left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."

So, does "doing the right thing" mean that gay rights is the new social justice issue of the 2000s? Are gays that oppressed?

Here's this from the Weekly Standard in 2006:

THE MOVEMENT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE to include same-sex unions has packaged its demands in the rhetoric and images of the civil rights movement. This strategy, though cynical, has enormous strategic utility. For what reasonable, fair-minded American could object to a movement that conjures up images of Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellows campaigners for racial justice facing down dogs and fire hoses? Who is prepared to risk being labeled a bigot for opposing same-sex marriage?

As an exercise in marketing and merchandising, this strategy is the most brilliant playing of the race card in recent memory. Not since the "poverty pimps" of 35 years ago, who leveraged the guilt and sense of fair play of the American public to hustle affirmative action set-asides, have we witnessed so brazen a misuse of African-American history for partisan purposes.

But the partisans of homosexual marriage have a problem. There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights. As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed more than 30 years ago, the black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States. While other ethnic and social groups have experienced discrimination and hardship, none of their experiences compare with the physical and cultural brutality of slavery. It was in the crucible of the unique experience of slavery that the civil rights movement was born.

The extraordinary history of the United States as a slaveholding republic included the kidnapping and brutal transport of blacks from African shores, and the stripping of their language, identity, and culture in order to subjugate and exploit them. It also included the constitutional enshrining of these evils in the form of a Supreme Court decision--Dred Scott v. Sandford--denying to blacks any rights that whites must respect, and the establishment of Jim Crow and de jure racial discrimination after Dred Scott was overturned by a civil war and three historic constitutional amendments.

It is these basic facts that embarrass efforts to exploit the rhetoric of civil rights to advance the goals of generally privileged groups, however much they wish to depict themselves as victims. Whatever wrongs individuals have suffered because some Americans fail in the basic moral obligation to love the sinner, even while hating the sin, there has never been an effort to create a subordinate class subject to exploitation based on "sexual orientation."

It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry. Let us consider the question of rights. What makes a gay activist's aspiration to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a "right"? Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interests are given pride of place be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital sexual conduct?

One must, in the current discussion, address directly the assertion of discrimination. The claim that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman constitutes discrimination is based on a false analogy with statutory prohibitions on interracial marriages in many states through much of the 20th century. This alleged analogy collapses when one considers that skin pigmentation is utterly irrelevant to the procreative and unitive functions of marriage. Racial differences do not interfere with the ability of sexually complementary spouses to become "one-flesh," as the Book of Genesis puts it, by sexual intercourse that fulfills the behavioral conditions of procreation. As the law of marital consummation makes clear, and always has made clear, it is this bodily union that serves as the foundation of the profound sharing of life at every level--biological, emotional, dispositional, rational, and spiritual--that marriage is. This explains not only why marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but also why marriages cannot be between more than two people--despite the desire of "polyamorists" to have their sexual preferences and practices legally recognized and blessed.

Moreover, the analogy of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage disregards the whole point of those prohibitions, which was to maintain and advance a system of racial subordination and exploitation. It was to maintain a caste system in which one race was relegated to conditions of social and economic inferiority. The definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system or relegate one sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority. It does, to be sure, deny the recognition as lawful "marriages" to some forms of sexual combining--including polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as equal.

People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not. That is why the law's refusal to license polygamous, polyamorous, and homosexual unions is entirely right and proper. In recognizing, favoring, and promoting traditional, monogamous marriage, the law does not violate the "rights" of people whose "lifestyle preferences" are denied the stamp of legal approval. Rather, it furthers and fosters the common good of civil society, and makes proper provision for the physical and moral protection and nurturing of children.

Well-intentioned liberals shudder upon hearing the word "discrimination." Its simple enunciation instills guilt and dulls their critical faculties. But once malcontented members of any group--however privileged--can simply invoke the term and launch their own personalized civil rights industry, the word has been emptied of its normative and historical content.

I doubt that's a message the major gay rights organizations are ready to embrace.

See more on this, at Memeorandum.

Gay Marriage and Sexual Exclusivity

David Frum gets all wishy washy, "I was wrong about same-sex marriage." (Via Memeorandum.) Frum indicates that he'd long opposed gay marriage, and he'd engaged Andrew Sullivan on the topic in online debates. But he's had a change of heart. Here's the gist of Frum's argument:

... I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage -- a vote that probably signals that most of "blue" states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don't think I'm alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm -- if not outright approval -- to New York's dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact.

If people like me had been right, we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half.

Instead -- while American family stability has continued to deteriorate -- it has deteriorated much more slowly than it did in the 1970s and 1980s before same-sex marriage was ever seriously thought of.

It keeps going like that, on the not-so-bad decline of the traditional family structure in America. But it's a lousy argument. I wrote on families the other day. In California just 23.4 percent of households include a traditional married family with children. The causes are complex, but making same-sex marriage easier will cause those numbers to further erode.

I don't think David Frum has a clue. More likely, he's just consolidating his shift away from the conservative right-wing. And this seems like a losing proposition, since it's not like there aren't enough incisive and influential commentators on the left, which is where Frum's headed. He's basically doing a Charles Johnson, except that he was a major pundit and conservative insider rather than a husky pony-tailed psychotic narcissist.

Anway, since Frum's using data from the mid-2000s, let's flash back to an article from 2004, by David Tubbs and Robert P. George "Redefining Marriage Away":

Conservative advocates of same-sex marriage insist that their goal is not a radical alteration of the institution itself. They favor the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships as marriages in order to secure "equal rights," they say. Their goal in redefining marriage is not to weaken or abolish it but to expand access to it, while leaving its core features intact. Far from harming marriage, they contend, the move to same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution.

Though this argument has a certain superficial appeal, it is profoundly mistaken. The issue is not one of equality or the right to participate in a valuable social institution. What divides defenders of traditional marriage from those who would redefine it is a disagreement about the nature of the institution itself. Redefining marriage will, of course, fundamentally change the posture of law and public policy toward the meaning and significance of human sexuality, procreation, and the bond between the sexes. Even more important, there are powerful reasons to fear that the proposed redefinition of marriage will destabilize and undermine this already battered institution.

To understand the destabilizing effects, consider this scenario. A young man and woman are engaged to be married. A month before the wedding, the man approaches his fiancée to ask whether she will consider an "open marriage," in which they will free each other from the duty to be sexually faithful.

Even today, the man's proposal is shocking, and his bride-to-be will almost surely be horrified by it. Nearly everyone would say that what the man has proposed is something other than a true marriage, since the norm of sexual exclusivity within marriage is essential to the institution. That is why the overwhelming majority of couples entering marriage do not even discuss whether they will follow the norm; they simply accept it.

Do most American husbands and wives honor the principle of sexual exclusivity in practice? The best evidence says yes. In their rigorous and acclaimed 1994 study on American sexual behavior, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann and his associates found that 65 to 85 percent of American men and more than 80 percent of American women (in every age group) had no sex partners other than their spouses while married. These figures are remarkable, especially if we recall the many ways in which popular culture has mocked or trivialized human sexuality and the demands of marriage in recent decades.

But do most same-sex couples accept the norm of sexual exclusivity? In a 1999 survey of such couples in Massachusetts, sociologist Gretchen Stiers found that only 10 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women thought that a "committed" intimate relationship entailed sexual exclusivity. An essay called "Queer Liberalism?" in the June 2000 American Political Science Review reviewed six books that discussed same-sex marriage. None of the six authors affirmed sexual exclusivity as a precondition of same-sex marriage, and most rejected the idea that sexual fidelity should be expected of "married" homosexual partners. For more than a decade, a wide array of authors who favor redefining marriage to include same-sex partners have advanced similar views. In a 1996 essay in the Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan law professor David Chambers even suggested that marriage should be redefined to include sexual unions of three or more people--so-called polyamorous relationships.

Sorry, David Frum. That's decidedly NOT keeping families stable. What an idiot.

Anyway, I cited news reports earlier that the battle for gay marriage has a long way to go nationwide, and I'll be writing more on this, since New York has energized the Democratic Party's rim-station base.

Meanwhile, Robert George had a major research paper out last year, which updates some of the arguments above, "What is Marriage?"

San Bernardino 'Mass Rainbow Wedding' Called Off After Nobody Shows Up

I guess the organizers thought God would part the skies and homosexuals would rain down like manna from heaven.

But not.

At the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, "Mass gay wedding in San Bernardino called off when no one shows":

SAN BERNARDINO -- A month after California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples once again, gay couples can get married, get divorced and even get cold feet.
A planned mass "Rainbow Wedding" ceremony at a gay community center in San Bernardino ended Saturday with the officiant being stood up at the altar when no one showed up more than an hour after the ceremony was scheduled to be held.

"It's a statement about equality," said P.J. Seleska, who runs Inland Empire Pride's Center on Waterman Avenue. "We had a big celebration" the night the Supreme Court struck down Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act "and kicked around ideas."

The center serves an impoverished region of thecity, and includes a food pantry and other services to help its largely poor clientele.

"It's so expensive to get married out there, are you kidding me?" Seleska said.

Marriage licenses alone cost $88 in San Bernardino County.

"Now I understand why people run out to Vegas," Seleska said.

Right.

It's "so expensive."

Damned freaks.

Moonbattery has more:

As this farcical episode illustrates, homosexual marriage was only an issue because the cultural Marxists who run the government and the media made it into one as a weapon to use against the traditional values that are the foundation of American civilization. The damage having been done to the institutions of marriage and Christianity, homosexuals are already returning to their bath houses. They tend to have hundreds of sex partners in the course of their often disease-shortened lives; blasphemous “marriages” are not likely to replace this lifestyle.

Word.

PREVIOUSLY: "Homosexual 'Marriage' Designed to Destroy the Institution of Marriage."

President Obama Backs Homosexual Marriage

There's never been any question of whether Obama "supports" same-sex marriage. It's always been a question of when he could come out of the closet in support of destroying the traditional and historical institution of marriage without dropping a nuclear bomb on his election chances. The jury's still out on that question, which is why today's announcement is, in part, such a big deal. For example, North Carolina has 15 electors in the Electoral College, which are now that much further out of reach for the president with his endorsement of the radical pro-gay agenda. Chris Cillizza reports on that angle, "President Obama’s calculated gamble on gay marriage."

To be fair, though, I've long criticized Obama as a pussy on gay rights. So from a Democrat's point of view, I think he did the right thing. And despite North Carolina's win last night, the trend does seem toward greater acceptance of homosexual marriage over time. The president can now claim that he's on the "right side" of history, from the gay civil rights perspective. I still think it should be up to the states --- and I think it would be politically stupid for Republicans to hop on board the same-sex marriage express. The gay lobby is repulsive. These people are perhaps the most thuggish constituency in progressive politics. The shift in support on gay marriage in the polls is largely explained by respondents who are tired of being attacked as "bigots." That's not so much winning over supporters as beating your opponents into submission.

So with that, let the great 2012 social policy debate begin. If Mitt Romney really wants to show he's conservative, the president couldn't have handed him a better opportunity.

Robert Stacy McCain has more, "Hope and Change Go Gay."

And see all the debate at Memeorandum.

Vote on Homosexual Marriage Rips Britain's Tories

Britain's ruling conservative party is trying to approve a vote on homosexual marriage, with some difficulty, it turns out.

At Telegraph UK, "Conservative party ripped apart by gay marriage vote":

The full scale of this week’s revolt by Conservative MPs against David Cameron’s plans to introduce same-sex marriage became clear on Saturday.

The Sunday Telegraph has established that around 180 Conservative MPs, most notably including six whips and up to four members of the Cabinet, are ready to defy the Prime Minister’s plan to legalise gay weddings.

Meanwhile, 25 chairmen or former chairmen of Conservative party associations across the country have signed a letter to Mr Cameron warning that the policy will cause “significant damage” to the Tories’ 2015 general election campaign.

One chairman, who has quit over the issue, said “this is a policy dreamt up in Notting Hill”, while a serving chairman said it had angered the grassroots more than Europe.

The vote on Tuesday is the first parliamentary vote on the gay marriage legislation and a test for the Prime Minister. However Downing Street now expects that only around 120 of Mr Cameron’s MPs will vote in favour of legalising homosexual unions. This leaves around 180 Conservative members likely to abstain or vote against. They include:

Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, and David Jones, the Welsh Secretary, both expected to vote against.

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, who will either vote against or abstain, while Iain Duncan Smith is expected to abstain, although a source close to the welfare secretary suggested that it was still possible he may side with the Government.

At least half of the Tories’ 12-man whips’ office, relied on by Mr Cameron to enforce party discipline. They are Stephen Crabb, David Evennett, Robert Goodwill, Mark Lancaster, Nicky Morgan and John Randall.

Senior party members including Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Liam Fox and Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the Commons Treasury Committee, who will not back the Bill.

Junior ministers including Mike Penning, John Hayes and Jeremy Wright. Mr Wright, a justice minister, said: “I will listen to the arguments in favour on Tuesday, but I am not persuaded by what I have heard so far.”

The Prime Minister has spoken passionately about allowing same-sex couples to marry, suggesting that such unions are in keeping with Conservative values.

Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary, who is overseeing the Bill, has said that the proposed legislation includes a “quadruple lock” to ensure that no church or other religious institution is forced to marry a same-sex couple. And last night Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary – a close ally of the Prime Minister – issued a strongly-worded defence of the plan.

He said: “Religious freedom is not just for heterosexuals – we should not deny anyone the right to make a lifelong commitment to another person in front of God if that is what they believe and that is what their church allows.”

Sounds like homo marriage not going over too well, eh mate?

Doctors for the Family 'Risk to Kids' Statement on Gay Marriage Roils Australian Politics

Okay, here's bringing you a comparative and international perspective on the radical left's gay marriage agenda.

See the report at The Australian, "Gay unions a 'risk to kids', claims Victoria's deputy chief psychiatrist":

ONE of Australia's leading psychiatrists has joined forces with 150 doctors lobbying the Federal Government to ban same-sex marriage.

Professor Kuravilla George, who is Victoria's deputy chief psychiatrist and the State Government's equal opportunities champion, claims that gay marriage poses a health risk to society.

In a letter to the Senate's inquiry into marriage equality, the group of doctors wrote that it was "important for the future health of our nation" to retain the definition of marriage as being between a man and woman.

"We submit the evidence is clear that children who grow up in a family with a mother and father do better in all parameters than children without," they wrote.

News of the letter, revealed in today's Sunday Herald Sun, follows Attorney-General Nicola Roxon's announcement yesterday that she would vote for gay marriage when the chance came later this year.

Ms Roxon was speaking as thousands of Australians held protest marches across the country calling on Ms Gillard to change her stance after US President Barack Obama said that same sex couples should be able to wed.

Australia passed an amendment to its laws in 2004 explicitly defining marriage as between a man and woman, but there are several bills before the parliament calling for the right to be extended to same-sex couples.

Also at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, "Doctors' group says heterosexual marriage better for kids."

But here's gay radical Jeremy Sear at Crikey, "Herald Sun falsely implies that “doctors” think gay marriage “a risk to kids”":

Any unprotected sexual behaviour comes with the risk of HIV and syphilis, not just homosexuality. What’s wrong with homosexual behaviour being treated as normal? On what basis do they claim it isn’t and shouldn’t be? And as for the headline assertion that kids grow up better in families “with a mother and father” – unless Prof George has commissioned a brand-new study which genuinely would be actual news ( which the Herald Sun doesn’t claim that he has), then that long-discredited claim will without doubt be based on old studies comparing two parent families with one parent families, rather than comparing the the kids of homosexual parents with the kids of heterosexual parents. (You’ll note how George and his mates fudge the claim a little so it implies the latter but is sort of within the ambit of the former. That’s the level of honesty you get from anti-equality advocates.)

Sear's Twitter feed is here.

RELATED: At the Sydney Morning Herald, "Push for Gillard to review gay marriage":

ARGENTINA'S President Cristina Kirchner will write to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to encourage her to support same-sex marriage, after an Australian pair became the first foreign same-sex couple to marry in the South American country.

Prominent same-sex marriage campaigner Alex Greenwich, the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality, married his long-term partner Victor Hoeld in a ceremony in Buenos Aires on the weekend. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Argentina, where more than 90 per cent of citizens identify as Catholic, since July 2010.

Mr Greenwich, of Sydney, was jubilant yesterday about his wedding, but expressed regret that he had needed to leave Australia to marry.

''Our wedding has been the happiest day of my life, and I will return to Australia more energised than ever before to achieve marriage equality,'' he said.

''As special as our wedding was, it is a shame that we had to travel to a foreign country that affords us more rights than the country we live in and love.''

Until recently, Buenos Aires limited marriage to residents of Argentina. But this requirement was dropped after Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young wrote to Buenos Aires mayor Mauricio Macri, asking him to make an exception on ''compassionate grounds'' for couples from countries that do not allow same-sex marriage.

Ms Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, who both oppose same-sex marriage, were last week accused of being out of step with their international counterparts after US President Barack Obama endorsed gay marriage and New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said he did not oppose it. British Prime Minister David Cameron has previously expressed support for same-sex marriage, and same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005.

Quite the globalized campaign, you think?

Homosexual 'Marriage' Designed to Destroy the Institution of Marriage

I just happened to come across this at the Blaze, "LESBIAN ACTIVIST’S SURPRISINGLY CANDID SPEECH: GAY MARRIAGE FIGHT IS A ‘LIE’ TO DESTROY MARRIAGE." (Hat tip: Marooned in Marin.)

There's audio at the link, but Glenn Beck featured this lesbian in a segment a couple of months back.



Again, I'm not sure how I missed this at the time, well, other than being in the middle of the semester, deep in term papers, but here's Robert George on the woman's same comments, "What Few Deny Gay Marriage Will Do":

Just imagine the uproar had, say, Rick Santorum said ,“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what [they] are going to do with marriage when [they] get there—because [they] lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.” But, of course, you don’t have to take it from Rick Santorum or other defenders of marriage as a conjugal union. Masha Gessen will tell you the same thing.

Although Gessen’s willingness to put the matter in terms of “lying” is startlingly frank, it is no longer uncommon for advocates of redefining marriage to acknowledge that the effect—for them an entirely desirable effect—of redefinition will be the radical transformation of the institution. The objective is not merely to expand the pool of people eligible to participate in it, as was long claimed. In conceding (and celebrating the fact) that redefining marriage will fundamentally alter the institution, transform its social role and meaning, and undermine its structuring norms of monogamy, exclusivity, etc., Gessen is far from out of step with other leading figures in the movement. She joins influential NYU sociologist Judith Stacey, Arizona State University professor Elizabeth Brake, “It Gets Better” founder Dan Savage, writer Victoria Brownworth, journalist E. J. Graff, activist Michelangelo Signorile, and countless other important scholars and activists.

Moreover, there seem to be very few prominent scholars and activists in the movement to redefine marriage who are criticizing Masha Gessen, Judith Stacey, Elizabeth Brake, and the others, and speaking out for the norms of monogamy and fidelity and other traditional marital and familial ideals. Many are quiet, but few actually deny that the abandonment of the conjugal understanding of marriage will have the transformative institutional and social effects that Gessen, Stacey, Brake and the others (approvingly) say it will have.

And be sure to read the comment thread.

The Gay Marriage Fantasy

It turns out there's some backlash on the secular left in response to the National Organization for Marriage's new ad compaign, "The Gathering Storm."

The Human Rights Campaign, a radical gay rights pressure group, has launched a counter-offensive, attacking "The Gathering Storm" as "lies about marriage for lesbian and gay couples." The Human Rights Campaign has released a video allegedly countering the claims of the National Organization for Marriage, which is available here.

The National Organization for Marriage can defend their own advertisment, but when the actors in the video suggest that advocates for same-sex marriage "want to change the way I live," there's no question as to that statement's accuracy. Indeed, as William Murchison demonstrates at Real Clear Politics, the gathering storm of gay marriage radicalism seeks indeed to hijack the very identity of traditional American culture, abducting it for themselves in a campaign of vile licentiousness and excoriation of those of moral faith and values:

You really can't have "gay marriage," you know, irrespective of what a court or a legislature may say.

You can have something some people call gay marriage because to them the idea sounds worthy and necessary, but to say a thing is other than it is, is to stand reality on its head, hoping to shake out its pockets.

Such is the supposed effect of the Iowa Supreme Court's declaration last week that gays and heterosexuals enjoy equal rights to marital bliss. Nope. They don't and won't, even if liberal Vermont follows Iowa's lead.

The human race -- sorry ladies, sorry gents -- understands marriage as a compact reinforcing social survival and projection. It has always been so. It will always be so, even if every state Supreme Court pretended to declare that what isn't suddenly is. Life does not work in this manner.

The supposed redefinition of the Great Institution is an outgrowth of modern hubris and disjointed individualism. "What I say goes!" has become our national philosophy since the 1960s. One appreciates the First Amendment right to make such a claim. Nonetheless, no such boast actually binds unless it corresponds with the way things are at the deepest level, human as well as divine. Surface things can change. Not the deep things, among them human existence.

A marriage -- a real one -- brings together man and woman for mutual society and comfort, but also, more deeply, for the long generational journey to the future. Marriage, as historically defined, across all religious and non-religious demarcations, is about children -- which is why a marriage in which the couple deliberately repudiates childbearing is so odd a thing, to put the matter as generously as possible.

A gay "marriage" (never mind whether or not the couple tries to adopt) is definitionally sterile -- barren for the purpose of extending the generations for purposes vaster than any two people, (including people of opposite sexes), can envision.

Current legal prohibitions pertaining to something called "gay marriage" don't address the condition called homosexuality or lesbianism. A lesbian or homosexual couple is free to do pretty much as they like, so long as it doesn't "like" too much the notion of remaking other, older ideas about institutions made, conspicuously, for others. Marriage, for instance.

True, marriage isn't the only way to get at childbirth and propagation. There's also the ancient practice called illegitimacy -- in which trap, by recent count, 40 percent of American babies are caught. It's a lousy, defective means of propagation, with its widely recognized potential for enhancing child abuse and psychological disorientation.

Far, far better is marriage, with all those imperfections that flow from the participation of imperfect humans. Hence the necessity of shooing away traditional marriage's derogators and outright enemies -- who include, accidentally or otherwise, the seven justices of Iowa's Supreme Court. These learned folk tell us earnestly that the right to "equal protection of the law" necessitates a makeover of marriage. And so, by golly, get with it, you cretins! Be it ordered that.

One can say without too much fear of contradiction that people who set themselves up as the sovereign arbiters of reality are -- would "nutty" be the word?

The Iowa court's decision in the gay marriage case is pure nonsense. Which isn't to say that nonsense fails to command plaudits and excite warnings to others to "keep your distance." We're reminded again -- as with Roe v. Wade, the worst decision in the history of human jurisprudence -- of the reasons judges should generally step back from making social policy. For one thing, a judicial opinion can mislead viewers into supposing that, well, sophisticated judges wouldn't say things that weren't so. Would they?

Of course they would. They just got through doing it in Iowa, and now the basketball they tossed in the air has to be wrestled for, fought over, contested: not merely in Iowa, but everywhere Americans esteem reality over ideological fantasy and bloviation. A great age, ours. Say this for it anyway: We never nod off.

See also my recent essay on the controversy at Pajamas Media, "An Attack on Traditional Marriage in Iowa."

For the radical left's campaign of demonizing those of faith, see Pam Spaulding, "National Organization for Marriage's new tactic: fear-mongering without using the word 'religion'."