Gay Patriot Header Image

Fighting Back Against the Wedding Cake Fascists

Posted by V the K at 11:24 am - January 26, 2014.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

Last year, Alan Sears was refused service by a photographer who didn’t approve of his personal values or lifestyle choices. He’s OK with that.

Six months ago, a Southern California photographer turned him down flat when he asked her to take a Christmas card photo of his family, explaining in an email, “I oppose the goals and objectives of your organization and have no interest in working on its behalf.”

That was fine with Mr. Sears, CEO and general counsel of the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, who is leading the legal battle on behalf of photographers, florists, cake decorators and others sued for refusing to create products for same-sex weddings.

What applies to wedding cake designers asked to violate their core beliefs, Mr. Sears argues, applies equally to liberals who decline to fill certain orders to conservatives customers.

Not long ago, his argument was widely dismissed by civil rights advocates as the isolated view of a subset of far-right Christians, but that is changing. A growing number of libertarians, supporters of same-sex marriage and even gays themselves are lining up with the Arizona-based legal defense group as the issue moves toward the Supreme Court.

If a baker or a photographer refuses service to a gay couple, they can do what Mr. Sears did when the leftist photographer refused him service; find somebody else.

On the opposite side, the ACLU is arguing on behalf of the wedding cake Fascists, on the novel legal theory that people who open a business forfeit all of their civil liberties. (Reminder: The ACLU was founded with explicit goal of advancing Communism.)

The Wedding Cake Fascists Strike Again.

Posted by V the K at 7:38 pm - January 20, 2014.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

This time in Oregon.

State labor investigators have determined a Gresham bakery violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple when it refused to make a cake for the women’s wedding.

Since when is access to cake a civil right? It’s almost like this Same Sex Marriage thing was less about getting benefits for same sex couples, and more about getting to use the power of the state to punish the unsupportive.

Moar Polygamy!!!

The Attorney General of North Dakota says that there is nothing legally preventing a person married to a person of the same sex in another state be married concurrently to a person of the opposite sex in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage.

 

An Interesting Double Standard

Posted by V the K at 6:42 am - December 11, 2013.
Filed under: Family,Gay Marriage

Bitter, shrill feminist Amanda Marcotte supports same-sex marriage.

Bitter, shrill feminist Amanda Marcotte is offended by traditional heterosexual marriage and mocks those who think it’s good for both men and women. (And manages to wedge in the long discredited myth that women earn 23% less than men.)

Discuss.

 

Conservatives, gay politics, and lost opportunities

At the time of the Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage this summer, it seemed to me that by ruling as it did, the Supreme Court had involuntarily handed many conservatives a great opportunity to move beyond the issue of gay marriage in ways that they hadn’t in the past.  Instead of making it a social or cultural issue, many conservatives could have sidestepped the issue entirely by talking more about economic issues and questions of taxation and state-sponsored benefits instead.

After all, the plaintiff in the case which challenged the Defense of Marriage Act was moved to file suit largely because of the estate taxes she incurred when her partner passed away.  So instead of viewing  it as a social or cultural issue, they could have taken up the cause of greatly reducing estate taxes for all regardless of marital status.

While I’m obviously biased on the issue, it seems to me that running on an anti-gay agenda is not a winning issue for conservatives.  I recognize that social conservatives played a very big role in the Reagan revolution, and I acknowledge that social conservatives are still an important part of the base that the Republican Party needs to keep winning elections.  But I believe that there are ways to accommodate social conservatives without alienating other potential voters.  Talking about court appointments is one way of doing this, because one needn’t be a social conservative to believe that the court should focus more on applying and interpreting the actual intent of the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench.  Likewise, one can have an honest debate about tax policy and whether or not it is in the state’s interest to carve out special exceptions for marriage or whether the state should get out of the marriage business all together and just simplify the tax code instead.

There are some signs that more and more Republican are getting this message.  On September 11 of this year, Politico reported on a survey that showed that more and more Republicans are embracing libertarian views about government.  (Hat Tip: The Blaze.)

FreedomWorks commissioned a national survey of registered voters last month, shared first with POLITICO, that finds 78 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents self-identify as fiscally conservative and socially moderate.

It’s not that Republicans are suddenly self-identifying as “libertarians” and devouring Ayn Rand novels, but more that they seem to be embracing underlying libertarian priorities and views about the role of government.

The Politico piece goes on to quote the Republican pollster who ran the poll saying that more and more voters are disturbed by both the size and the intrusiveness of government in the Obama era:

Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway, who ran the poll, said she’s seeing a spike in voters who feel the government is too expensive, invasive and expansive.

“The perfect storm is being created between the NSA, the IRS, the implementation of Obamacare and now Syria,” she said. “People are looking at the government more suspiciously. They’re looking with deeper scrutiny and reasonable suspicion.”

It all sounds great so far from my perspective.  I think this is a direction that Republicans need to embrace to be able to win significantly in the future.
And then, there’s the sad case of Virginia.  I first heard of Ken Cuccinelli when he was elected Attorney General of Virginia in 2009, in an election that many viewed as a sign of trouble ahead for the Democrats in 2010.  I knew he had played a large role in fighting Obamacare and in bringing the fight to the Supreme Court, and so it seemed to me that he would have a good chance of being elected Governor of Virginia this year, especially since he is running against corrupt Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe.  Over the summer, though, I kept hearing that Cuccinelli was not doing well against McAuliffe in the polls, and I wondered why that might be.

New Mexico gets it wrong

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 3:17 pm - August 25, 2013.
Filed under: Equality (Real or Faux?),Freedom,Gay America,Gay Marriage

Via Ace and Breitbart, NM’s Supreme Court has ruled that New Mexico law compels photographers who religiously disbelieve in gay marriage to serve gay weddings.

If the law does: Then it’s a bad law, a law that violates natural human rights to freedom of association and to freely-chosen work. It is not good for gays; picture a gay photographer being required by law to serve the wedding of some social conservative whom he or she despises.

On long discussions and gay-related policy news

Jeff’s brief post on Friday linking to a piece in The Onion has generated one of the longer discussion threads here in recent months at GayPatriot.  At the risk of mischaracterizing or oversimplifying it, much of the discussion has centered around the policy goals of gay activists of various stripes, as well as whether or not, criticizing or finding fault with some of those goals means one sympathizes with the aims of various anti-gay activists.

I think it is well-known to most regular readers that several of the contributors at GayPatriot, for instance, are either ambivalent or agnostic about the policy questions regarding same-sex marriage.  I, for one, feel that the courts are the wrong place for the argument over so-called “marriage equality” to proceed and that it is better taken up through the legislative process.  Likewise, I don’t feel that one needs to call it marriage if doing so antagonizes a significant portion of the populace who feel that marriage has a traditional meaning which they would rather not modify.  I’ve said before and I’ll say again that what we’re really talking about when we talk about same-sex marriage is a matter of  1). how the state recognizes a contractual relationship between two individuals, and 2). whether or not it has any business granting special privileges to those in a “traditional marriage” which it does not grant to others.  I’d argue that a debate that focused on the desirability of certain policy choices would be much more productive and much more worthwhile than one centered on emotional claims about “rights” and “equality.”  I’d also say that a more dispassionate debate about the implications of policy is more in keeping with both conservative and libertarian principles.

My aim today, though, is not to revisit that debate or to consider the implications of the recent Supreme Court decisions on those issues (though I’m still planning to do so in a future post), but to bring up some of the questions raised by the fact that today New Jersey became the second state (after California) to ban “conversion therapy” for gay youths.  My personal view on the issue is that “conversion therapy” doesn’t work in most cases and, to the extent that it is practiced, it should really only be viewed as an option for adults who choose to willingly commit to it.  In other words, New Jersey’s ban is in accord with my personal view on the matter, and yet, for philosophical reasons, I’m still bothered by some aspects of the legislation.

Neo-neocon expresses reservations similar to mine when she writes:

It is no use pretending that therapy—and the licensing of therapists by the state—is not at least partly a political endeavor subject to political fashion rather than a science. Nor should therapists be completely unrestricted. For example, therapists are already prohibited from sexual contact with patients—even willing patients, even adult patients—because it is considered inherently exploitative. But the most harmful practices that could be used by conversion therapists (for example, electric shock) could be banned without banning the entire enterprise. And as the articles point out, mainstream therapy organizations have already condemned conversion therapy and do not advocate it.

But apparently none of that would be enough for the advocates of this bill; the therapy itself must be defined by the government as inherently and unfailingly abusive (what’s next, taking children away from parents who don’t applaud and celebrate their gayness?) As the nanny state grows, so will these essentially political moves by the government. This bill opens the door for a host of governmental abuses in which the state dictates the enforcement of politically correct thought through the mechanism of so-called therapy, and therapists become the instruments by which the public is indoctrinated in what is currently politically acceptable and what is verboten.

Chilling, indeed.

At the risk of invoking the “slippery-slope” argument, I can’t see a way around the concerns that Neo-neocon expresses.  I’d have preferred to let the market regulate itself without getting the state involved in this way.  Once the state has weighed in on this question, though, where can we expect it to weigh in next, and will it ever stop trying to regulate the way parents raise their children?  I can’t see that it ever will.

It’s an unfortunate reality that many gay kids grow up in homes that are not especially loving, nurturing or supportive.   The state, though, is none of those things, either, no matter what the expressed intentions of lawmakers might be.  Increasing the reach of the state into individual lives should not be a comfort to any of us.

From the comments: What we must acknowledge about the left

In the comments for my last post on Obamacare commenter Ignatius began his discussion of the legislation’s undesirable albeit unstated aims with the observation: “I believe that political discussions would be much easier if those on the right jettisoned this quaint idea that leftists have good intentions.”  I highlighted that sentence in a subsequent comment, and other commenters took up the theme, as well.

Commenter Eddie Swaim observed:

While reading the comments about “the left,” it suddenly occurred to me that after listening to Rush Limbaugh for 25 years, he has always been careful to separate “the left” politicians in D.C. from “the left” common everyday folk. I always agreed with him but now I’m not so sure. Most of the gay male liberals that I know fall right in line with the D.C. politicians. Anything and everything is o.k. if it hurts [conservatism] or wins them a battle against the right, whether or not their action is legal or ethical. The ends always justify the means.

Likewise, commenter Steve linked to this video of Ann Coulter discussing the tendency of liberals and the lamestream media to fall back on “racial demagoguery” to advance their agenda in cases like the Zimmerman trial.

I thought of all three comments when I came across another link to an article by John Hawkins dated March 27, 2012.  Hawkins’ article is entitled “5 Uncomfortable Truths About Liberals,” and I encourage everyone to read the whole thing.  For the moment, though, I’ve summarized his five points below.  Hawkins writes that:

1) Most liberals are hateful people.

2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred.

3) Most liberals are less moral than other people.

4) Most liberals don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.

5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant.

Now while the language in those observations is strong enough that Hawkins could be accused of engaging in hyperbole, I think a certain amount of strong language is necessary for describing leftist rhetoric and means of argumentation.  There’s no need to take my word for it, though, read the whole thing and decide for yourself.

I would say, though, that in both the Zimmerman case and in the debates (and protests) over late-term abortion restrictions in Texas, we’ve seen many of the traits Hawkins describes displayed quite openly by many leftists.

Likewise, consider this article in The Advocate which a Facebook acquaintance brought to my attention.  The article focuses on the “mighty change of heart” which many Mormons have undergone on the issues of gay rights and gay marriage.  True to what both Hawkins and our commenters noted, most gay leftists will have none of it, as is very evident from their comments on the Advocate article.  Rather than welcome the changes underway in the LDS church, they are expressing their hatred and intolerance for the Mormons in very hostile language.  Read the comments there and see for yourself.

Now while I know a number of our readers might believe that the Mormons brought the hatred on themselves through the church’s advocacy against Proposition 8 in California in 2008, I’d point out a few things that the left never will, namely: 1). Despite what the HRC and its allies would have us believe, opposition to gay marriage isn’t necessarily motivated by hate, however easy or convenient it may be to believe that, and 2). Individuals are and should be defined by more than their affiliation with some group or collective.  The gay left is always up in arms about what this group or that group said or did about some gay issue, but they never have qualms about denouncing or smearing or insulting members of that group in a similar manner.

Paula Deen and more, at American Thinker

I hadn’t visited there in awhile, but longtime commenter TGC put me on to this piece about Paula Deen. As many have noted, the frenzy against her seems ridiculously out-of-proportion: one occasion of saying the N-word privately 30 years ago, and her career now is to be destroyed.

The Deen witch-hunt may be an exercise in minority privilege, or/and, as Voshell’s piece suggests, it may be that Deen is several things which the Left simply hates: a Christian; a proponent of (delicious) lard, butter and sugar; a self-made woman (who doesn’t much push leftism); and more.

Once you’ve had one, you can’t stop. Some other AT pieces caught my eye:

UPDATE (from Dan): There is a little more to the Paula Deen story, suggesting that she was negligent in allowing her brother to engage in “juvenile behavior” while working at a restaurant they both owned (via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt available by subscription).

UPDATE (from Jeff): That link still doesn’t give enough to justify firing her. “A moonlight-and-magnolias romantic view of Southern culture and history”, and a “redneck clod” brother who (gasp!) needs drug treatment and watches pr0n…Probably not news to Deen’s public.

UPDATE (from Jeff): What rusty just added in the comments from blacklegalissues.com, would be more serious. Systematic abuse of minority employees, something everyone should condemn – if it’s true. First question to ask is, whether it is true. If it is, I’ll join with the Deen-bashers.

UP-UPDATE (from Dan): I saw that post yesterday from blacklegalissues.com on Facebook and had planned on looking into it as time allows. If that story bears out, then, Paula Deen’s actions are in a word, despicable and she merits the condemnation she has been receiving in the media (and more). But, my preliminary research suggests that her greatest crime appears to be a failure to supervise a mean-spirited sibling; he may be responsible for the worst excesses.

Still, this bears looking into.

UPDATE (from Jeff): Worth noting that Deen is reportedly a Democrat, and that Jimmy Carter defended her a few days ago. Since I know that Democrats can be racists and have a tradition of racism in their party, I don’t take either of those as necessarily in Deen’s favor; for now, I am really just noting them.

How telling stories helps us define the meaning of marriage

Back in February and March when I was re-reading and reading* Madeline L’Engle’s Time Quintet, I recalled the author’s bittersweet Two-Part Invention.  The subtitle helps show my interest in the book:  “The Story of a Marriage.”

At the time, I thought it was the best book on marriage I had ever read.  Later, when I re-read the Odyssey, I realized Homer’s epic still holds that title.  (And perhaps always will.)

Given that I underline in my books and often write notes in the margins and fly-leaves, I thought that by reviewing this book, I might quickly locate a few insights, a few conclusions she has made about that ancient and honorable institution to help me craft a post on gay marriage similar to that Megan McArdle, as Jane Galt, wrote eight years ago, A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other.

But, L’Engle’s book was about marriage primarily in the sense that she reflects on her life, her relationship with her husband Hugh, farmed in part around his death from cancer in 1986 .  To write movingly about marriage, she deals not in abstractions, but in anecdotes, sharing certain experiences with us as she recalls her feelings and her reflects on her and her beloved’s interactions.   And as I reviewed my notes, I wondered if what has been bothering me so much about the debate on gay marriage is that most people do the opposite of what L’Engle did in this book, that is, they talk mostly in abstractions.

Marriage is about love, say the advocates.  Gay marriage will destroy the institution, say the opponents.  The former hardly discuss how love can sustain a life-long partnership.  The opponents don’t tell us how exactly same-sex unions will undermine the institution.

And their tired cliches sound increasingly empty each time another individual repeats them anew.   What L’Engle teaches us is that to really get at the meaning of marriage, you need do more than recite rehearsed bromides, you need to tell stories.

No wonder that when Homer reunites Odysseus and Penelope after twenty years of separation, he has Athene delay the dawn so that the married couple can both delight in the pleasure of love-making and share each other’s stories. (more…)

The brand new politically correct meaning of hate

Perhaps the greatest difficulty of having a civil debate about gay marriage is the readiness of all too many (but fortunately not all) gay marriage advocates to label those who oppose gay marriage (or just state recognition thereof) as “haters,” or recalling Prop 8, h8ers.

Today, in a post at pjmedia (the Glenn linked), Roger Kimball finds that gay marriage advocates aren’t the only ones to define their ideological adversaries as haters. Reporting on the decision of the government of the United Kingdom to ban Pamela Geller and Robert Geller from visiting that nation, Kimball comments:

A spokesman for the Home Office welcomed the ban on Geller and Spencer, explaining: “The UK should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate.” Hmm — “who promote hate.” Query: do Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer “promote hate”? Or is that just a rhetorical epithet employed by ideologues bent on advancing a certain politically correct agenda in order to stifle criticism? (Another question: what is a “hate crime”? Is a crime more of a crime because it was committed by someone who dislikes the victim? Or is it like the term “social justice,” a piece of rhetorical legerdemain intended to lend gravity to a noun by the act of prefacing an emotionally charged but irrelevant adjective?)

The point is that the metabolism of liberal democracy depends upon the free exchange of ideas, which means, in part, a vigorous circulation of competing ideas. No less a figure than John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, pointed out: “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” There is plenty to criticize in Mill, heaven knows (and I’ve done my bit to criticize him), but he was surely right that liberal democracy depends in part upon fostering the “collision” of competing ideas.

Emphasis added to elucidate the brand new politically correct definition of hate.

Read the whole thing.

My USA Today Column on DOMA & Prop 8

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:20 am - June 27, 2013.
Filed under: Gay Leftist Lickspittles,Gay Marriage

I’m sure this is what resulted in the aforementioned hate mail this morning.  Here’s a sneak peek.

As a gay conservative, I’ve always been conflicted about the issue of gay marriage. I guess it is because my political and moral philosophies are not dictated by the desire to be loved by the president or the federal government. I believe that my rights as an American citizen come from my Creator, not Barack Obama, John Roberts or Nancy Pelosi. But the reaction from most gay liberals today to theoverturning of the Defense of Marriage Act and reversing the California voters’ decision in Proposition 8 has been the opposite. The gay political class is celebrating Big Government waving its haughty approval like King George III waving his hand over his colonies.

So for those of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who needed the federal government’s emotional approval of their relationship: Congratulations. I just hope all gay and lesbian Americans take a moment to stop and thank Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for nominating Justices Kennedy and Roberts so the Clinton era of discrimination could come to an end Wednesday.

Read the whole thing!

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

The gay marriage decisions & the gay marriage debate

I find it a somewhat delicious irony that on the day the Supreme Court hands down its gay marriage decisions, a day I had planned on blogging about the debate on gay marriage.  But, I had been planning that before knowing that on the actual day, I would be more focused on writing the first chapter of the second part of my epic.

I have long thought the debate on this important issue, this fundamental social institution, has long been particularly lame.  And from reading my Facebook feed, see that it has become ever more so, with all too many (but fortunately not all) treating the decisions not so much as constitutional interpretation and social policy, but as personal validation — as if they needed some government body to decide the “right” way so they can feel recognized.  But, that feeling of approval will fade.

That said, I have seen two statements on Facebook which do get at the meeting of the decision, from people on opposite sides of the political aisle.  And I’m sure that in due course, I will discover some thoughtful blog posts and editorials.  But, for now, while I have much to say about marriage, my mind is on my book.  At the end of May, I finished the first draft of the first part of the book (over 150,000 words) and spent the better part of this month revising it, having intended today to print out the whole thing and take it to a printer (so I can share it with friends).  (As I begin serious work on the second part.)

So, let me offer the meaningful Facebook post for your consideration.  My friend Harmeet Dhillon (my predecessor as president of the U-VA Federalist Society) offered this on the standing issue which served to overturn Prop 8:

As a political law practitioner, the broader implication of today’s Prop 8 ruling is 1) a narrow interpretation of standing and 2) apparently there is no recourse by the citizens if their elected constitutional officers (here, the Attorney General) simply refuses to enforce a law passed by the majority of voters. The former is likely an artifice of the Court trying to dodge a merits decision on a very controversial issue, but the latter severely undercuts the power of the citizen-sponsored proposition in California, regardless of subject matter or what political persuasion is affected. A sobering reminder that your vote on propositions sort of matters sometimes, while your vote on who is the Attorney General matters a whole lot. And not enough of you vote!

Our left-of-center reader Rob Tisinai gets that state recognition of marriage is about more than just “rights”: (more…)

Bill Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act Finally Overturned By Roberts Court

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:11 am - June 26, 2013.
Filed under: Equality (Real or Faux?),Gay Marriage

I was asked to do a play-by-play on the morning’s SCOTUS rulings at Ricochet.com.  So I present you a somewhat truncated version of that post.  Mostly because I’m lazy and do this for free.

As I expected, the Supreme Court has just issued its opinion that the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton, is unconstitutional.

The vote was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy joining the liberal justices and Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

From SCOTUSblog:

DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

“DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled ot recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.”

The opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

More on DOMA from SCOTUSblog:

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.
An aside: This is vintage Kennedy.

I was wrong on the Prop 8 decision, though.  I thought the Court would uphold the California voters’ decision.  But ultimately, they ruled on standing not merit of the case.

From Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed (who is also a lawyer) has this to say about Prop 8 decision:

Today’s decision means the trial-court decision striking down #Prop8 stands. Questions remain whether that can & will be enforced statewide.

Here’s an attempt at interpretation on Prop 8 ruling from SCOTUSblog:

Here’s a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.

So there you go.  As we’ve said all along here at GayPatriot, this should be a state issue.  Now jubilant low-information gays prancing around Chelsea and The Castro agree with us, even though they don’t know why!

YAY, America!

Reminder: We have the worst economic conditions since 1939.  Priorities.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Chez Obama: The fun never stops

I know some of you are up-to-the-minute newshounds, while others are slower to the mark, like me. Once more, I’m playing catch-up on the last few days and shocked at how bad it is. Here’s my summary, for anyone else who might be “behind” like me.

On the IRS / Tea Party scandal, and mostly via HotAir:

Over in the Obama DOJ’s spy-on-the-media scandal, AG Holder is pleading a technicality to get out of a perjury charge, as I thought he might.

But hey – At least a low-level (for real) Federal worker who committed fraud, got some just desserts.

Please feel free to add more stuff that I should be noticing, in the comments!

UPDATE: McDermott, still at it, wonders aloud if yesterday’s committee witnesses might have lied. At 3:21 he says, “People can say anything, and they do, before committees. But the fact is, we don’t know [it] to be true.”

And at MSNBC, Martin Bashir plays the RAYYYSIST! card. He calls the reaction against the IRS abuses part of, in his words, “the war against the black man in the White House.”

How low can these people go? I need something uplifting, now. Here it is, via Ace and The Right Scoop: Becky Gerritson reminding us what the Tea Party is about.

Rhode Island recognizes gay marriages the right way

After several tries, the Ocean State will start recognizing same-sex marriages on August 1.   Both houses of the legislature voted in favor of such recognition and the elected governor signed the bill into law.

And this legislation, like that in New Hampshire, addresses the concerns of those who contend such recognition would force churches (and other religious institutions) to perform weddings at odd with their faith’s doctrine.  According to the Associated Press’s David Klepper:

The bill that passed the House stated that religious institutions may set their own rules regarding who is eligible to marry within the faith and specifies that no religious leader is obligated to officiate at any marriage ceremony. The Senate added language to ensure that groups like the Knights of Columbus aren’t legally obligated to provide facilities for same-sex weddings.

With such provisions, the Ocean State not only recognizes same-sex marriages, but also protects religious freedom.

Kudos.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Jayne contends that “union of 2 males or 2 females is, biologically, historically and culturally so vastly different from the union between a male and female that to define it with the same term renders the definition meaningless.”

I would agree that same-sex unions are different from different-sex ones merely because of the differences between men and women, but is she right, are they “vastly different”? (Emphasis added.)

Guest Post: My Ever Devolving Stance on Gay Marriage

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:23 pm - May 1, 2013.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

GP Ed. Note: This is a guest post by GayPatriot reader LJ Regine. 

LJ Regine is a blogger, writer and political junkie living in New York City. You can check out more of his work as a contributing writer for Conservatives4Palin.com and his blog Whisky Dreams.

=========

There is a book I recommend any young gay man read entitled Androphilia by Jack Donovan. I found it in 2008 and was confused, perplexed and challenged by it. I found it in 2008 and was confused, perplexed and challenged by it. It shattered everything I thought I knew about gay-ness and the gay identity. Donovan explained how gays needed to reject the gay community and reclaim the mantle of masculinity, as androphiles.

I’ve always been very interested in what it means to be a man (as I am one) and have found that as I get older — I get more and more in touch with my masculine side. Donovan has become a very prolific writer for me and has inspired many writings, creative and political, over the past couple of years. As someone who has always beat to my own drum, I find that I toe the line very smoothly between the gay and straight world. I never quite fit in with any one “community” or group of people. I’m an individual, believe in rugged individualism as an American ideal, am very patriotic — and have worked through and accepted many conservative view points. I could talk at length at how masculine I am or am not perceived to be, but I know that deep down, who I am, is unabashedly male.

The short end of the stick was being raised primarily by my mother with an ineffective father, who was taught from a young age to acquiesce to all the women in his life. Being raised and surrounded by, I grew up speaking the language of women. I was rejected by the boys on the playground as I was “too sensitive” and didn’t learn, til much later in life, how to man up and be part of the tribe.

As Donovan did, I found the gay community as some shelter from the storm of a world I thought didn’t understand me. But now, as I edge closer to 30 — I have begun to awaken the warrior within me. Men are violent, we are assertive, we are aggressive — but we are also noble, loyal, passionate and courageous. That is the man I am and aspire to be.

Now all this talk of gay marriage? I’m borrowing from Donovan’s thoughts on it — but I agree with him.

(more…)

Silencing and slurring those with poltically incorrect views

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:18 pm - April 12, 2013.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Liberal Intolerance

Pick any issue currently being advanced by progressives“, writes Doug Manwaring today in the American Thinker:

. . . same-sex marriage, state-mandated free contraception, abortion, man-made global warming and strict gun control, to name a few. Publicly question or resist any of these and be prepared to be judged as an anti-science, homophobic, misogynist, racist, xenophobic, Neanderthal.

As with little Anthony, to attempt to enter into legitimate discussion or debate on these issues is out of the question, and met with severe consequences. Your have only two options: Start thinking “happy thoughts,” or brace yourself for the cornfield.

Read the whole thing.  H/t: reader Heliotrope. Manwaring cites an episode of the Twilight Zone where little Anthony Freeman with his special powers will banish you to the cornfield if you don’t think “happy thoughts” or “say happy things.”

Even if we don’t agree with Manwaring on gay marriage (he’s gay, but believes ” the definition of Marriage is immutable”), we can at least recognize that instead of addressing the arguments of their critics, all too many gay marriage advocates resort to name-calling and ostracism of individuals who oppose their cause.

How often do they accuse such opponents of hatred?  (More on this topic as time allows.)

Piers Morgan upset that Republican Congressman opposed to gay marriage loves his gay son?

Seems CNN’s Piers Morgan is not much interested in the story of “Matt Salmon, the gay son of a Republican congressman” because the young man “refused to criticize his father, who is not a supporter of same-sex marriage.”  As Paul Mirengoff writes at Powerline:

The rejection of guests because they won’t serve as props to further the host’s simplistic narrative isn’t confined to CNN and MSNBC. I experienced it with a well-known Fox News talk-show host.

But using a son as a prop to bash his father seems to carry the joke too far. Moreover, O’Donnell and Morgan are missing the real story of the Salmons and the Portmans — the loyalty that stems from family love. Matt Salmon is loyal to his father; Rob Portman is loyal to his son.

Wonder who is going to examine the prejudices of Mr. Morgan (and Lawrence O’Donnell at MSNBC).  He seems to be assuming that because a man doesn’t support gay marriage, his son must needs criticize him.

Maybe we’re not as polarized on gay marriage as the sensationalist coverage of the issue makes it appear.

Actually there is a story here, one to which our friends in the media (and on the gay left) seem oblivious, that (most) opposition to gay marriage is not rooted in hate and that an opponent of gay marriage can love a gay child.  And that child can love his parents even when disagreeing with their views on social issues.

How many of us have relatives with whom we often lock horns on politics, but for whom we’d drive through a rainstorm to help them in their hour of need?

Another Senator Comes Out — For Gay Marriage

See my sarcastic response to Mark Kirk’s announcement in my first posting at Ricochet!

Quick preview:

I simply want to ask this question as Sen. Kirk’s announcement works into the national psyche.

Who cares?

Since President Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage to the position long held by former Vice President Dick Cheney, there has been no substantive attempt at the Federal level to make any change at all with regard to the issue itself.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)