Sunday, August 17, 2008

The Pro-Prop 8 crowd shows their colors

Remember the LA Times editorial opposed to California's Prop 8, the anti-gay-marriage amendment?

As this LA Times blogger writes, the editorial didn't begin to touch on the wackiness of the proponents of this amendment.
The measure's supporters are generally careful to avoid appearing anti-gay, probably because they realize that, for all the voter split on same-sex marriage, Californians generally support gay rights. They professed in our meeting to have no ill will toward gay people...until the talk went deeper.

At one point, the conversation turned to the "activist judges" whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality. So much for the expert opinions of the American Psychological Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics that people cannot choose their sexuality.....

In any case, one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children's rights, and it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments. Aside from this notion of a homosexual recruitment plot -- making it understandable where the word "homophobia" came from -- this made no logical sense at all. Same-sex couples. whether married or not, already have children. Marriage wouldn't change a thing about this picture except, perhaps, to model for children that parents tend to be married.
Sometimes, you don't need to add anything.

Please keep my marriage legal. Oppose Prop 8!

22 comments:

James said...

I am 51 years old and I have a lot of GLB friends. In 51 years, I've never known one of them to "recruit" a single person -- young or old.

The por 8 folks know they are going to ahve to rely on fear to generate support.

Scott Hankins said...

Egads. I have the strange feeling that I'm reading about a meeting in 1957.

fear not said...

There's been research to show that children of homosexual couples are no more likely than children of heterosexual couples to identify themselves as gay.

I can't cite articles. But that research is decades old now! And likely more of it since the 80's. The research has been cited in court cases where there was a custody dispute and one parent alleged the other parent was unfit and would "turn" the children gay. Obviously that ploy did not work then either! CA lawyers should be able to locate the info or the court cases.

Anonymous said...

Oh, there's entire legal textbooks on the subject.

Children of LGBT parents tend to be more OPEN to considering a non-heterosexual identity, but they end up in the same proportions of gay and straight as everyone else.

IT said...

If parents "turned" you to a particular sexuality, the vast majority of us gay folks would be straight. On account of us having those wonderful straight parents.

IT, much loved lesbian daughter of wonderful straight parents.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry, us pro-Prop 8 folks have plenty of motivation in the GLBT "wackiness" in the form of Pride Parades, Fillmore St. Fair, and other unsavory events. We're not reduced to the subjective opinions of an editorialist at a declining paper with a notorious reputation for screwing up the facts.

Have you heard of the 100s of CA churches that are organizing in unprecedented numbers for the prop? It's basically setting up a political canvassing and phone bank operation on the level of a presidential campaign, but by a bunch of amateurs. Absolutely amazing work being guided by the Lord in such a short time!

Unfortunately, I was the victim of a gay "groomer" in my youth and had subsequent negative experiences with the Lavender Mafia in seminary. Fortunately, I was old enough in seminary to defend myself (and others) against the homosexual predations. Unfortunately, I was a witness for a situation in which a seminarian with bi-sexual attractions was swung to the dark side and eventually lost his vocation by the dominant gay clique. It is for those teens with ambiguous sexual identities that I fight this battle: to ensure that same-sex relationships will never be equated with godly marriage.

FrMichael

IT said...

Ooooh, look, FrMichael Troll is back.

Let's just refer him here, shall we? There may be some useful resources there for him there because it's clear he may need help to work through his anger and bitterness at abuse.

You see, I realize that even though there are Catholics who behave badly and who are unworthy of my respect, not all Catholics DO behave badly--most do not, in fact-- and therefore they ARE worthy of my respect. Pity FrMichael hasn't managed to reach that level of enlightenment. I believe this is common in victims of abuse, so I urge him to seek professional help.

And Fr Michael, my lovely lesbian wedding will be attended by many active Catholics. after all, I'm marrying one. :-)

IT

IT said...

Sigh. Mea culpa, my friends. I fed the troll. Perhaps this will help wash it down.

Mexican coffee:
Ingredients:
# 1 ounce Kahlua
# 1/2 ounce tequila
# Whipped cream
# Nutmeg for garnish
# Fresh but fairly strong hot coffee

Instructions:
# Pour Kahlua and tequilla into glass coffee mug
# Stir gently
# Garnish with whipped cream and sprinkle a little nutmeg on top if you'd like

I suggest the troll try it with decaff.

IT

Cany said...

I see no troll... I see no troll...

I done gib u an awardie.

http://justanotherblacksheep.blogspot.com/

IT said...

Yeah but Cany....

....you left me out of the citation on your blog. :-(

It's because I'm the atheist, isn't it?

It's okay (sniff). I know I'm not a real Episcopalian. (sniff). Although technically, I believe I an actual RC.

But it means David has to post the award and nominate the "pass on"s. So there, David.

IT

(sniffing)

(not really :-)

David said...

All right "FrMichael," I've just about had it with you. If you don't get polite and respectful of others here real quick, I will delete any post I find from you from now on (go read the "About comments" section on the right hand side of the main page if you're not clear on our policy).

As far as I'm concerned, this blog is like having a group over to our home for drinks, a little nosh, and some stimulating conversation. Anything that'd get you thrown out of my house will get you the boot here, too. And believe me when I tell you that I'm already on my way across the living room with plans to perp walk you out the front door...

Kurt said...

Troll Souffle

Ingredients
1 can soup, cream of mushroom
1/2 cup light cream
4 large eggs separated
1 large egg white
1 cup troll meat, cooked shredded

Directions
Heat soup in a double boiler top while separating the eggs.

Beat the egg yolks until thick and lemon-colored.

Remove the soup pot and add egg yolks, stirring well.

Add troll meat. Cool slightly.

Beat 5 egg whites until very stiff. Fold into egg yolk mixture.

Gently turn the batter into a well-buttered souffle dish and bake at 375 degrees Fahrenheit for 30 minutes. (Chicken may be substituted if troll meat is unavailable).

Wormwood's Doxy said...

IT---I just made a donation. Since I thought that donating in honor of "IT" would seem funny, I did it in Susan Russell's honor instead.

But know that you were on my mind...

Pax,
Doxy

Марко said...

Sometimes popular culture can be a barometer of real attitudes about sexuality. Does anyone find it interesting or ironic that the number one song (not only in the U.S. but even here in Bulgaria) is "I Kissed a Girl and I Liked It" which is sung with gusto by the very female Katy Perry:

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/k/katy_perry/i_kissed_a_girl.html

People upight about same-sex behavior seem to be more of a minority these days.

Anonymous said...

David, thanks for the explanation. I see that this blog isn't the free-fire zone of the Jake's blog of old but a more sedate affair. Fair enough: you won't be hearing from me again.

FrMichael

IT said...

Thank you Doxy!!!! In whose honor matters much less than the fact of the thing.

I tried to figure out how to set up an IT page but it isn't conducive to aliases.

tgflux said...

Absolutely amazing work being guided by the Lord in such a short time!

*Your* "Lord", FrMichael, maybe.
{cough}Father-of-Lies{cough}

Prop "Hate" is goin' down!

JCF (my TypeKey ID has been screwy of late, and I'm just testing it here)

susan s. said...

Now, now! He said he was going JCF. No need to waste a good rant here! ;-)

Leonardo Ricardo said...

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_10229683?nclick_check=1

Here's some VERY CHEERFUL News!

Leonardo Ricardo said...

Editorial: Initiative against gay marriage must be defeated
Mercury News Editorial
Article Launched: 08/17/2008 01:35:13 AM PDT

Of all the reasons people give for banning gay marriage - the purpose of Proposition 8 on the November ballot - the most difficult for us to fathom is that a marriage between two people of the same sex somehow diminishes the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

Marriage is the most personal of commitments, and it already means different things to different couples. Some marry for love, others expediency. Some have children, others don't, or couldn't if they wanted to. There is no merit test; people marry despite histories of domestic violence, rape or child abuse. Why would couples determine the value of their own vows based on who else is allowed to take them?

The state constitution should never be amended to limit Californians' right to their own personal and religious beliefs. It should scrupulously uphold equal rights under the law. That is what it now does, based on a state Supreme Court ruling this year affirming a right to same-sex marriage. Voters should not take the extraordinary step of amending the constitution to take a right away. They should reject Proposition 8.

Those who would impose their own intensely personal or religious feelings about marriage ignore the word's equally important secular and legal definitions. Marriage confers a whole range of rights and responsibilities around inheritance, parenthood, medical decision-making, tax benefits and liabilities, and on and on. In American law, all of these are affected by marriage.
California has a domestic-partnership law that covers many of these areas, but it's a second-class recognition that is not routinely accorded the respect of marriage. And if Proposition 8 passes, it could lead to a rollback of some of the rights same-sex couples now enjoy.

The benefit of the institution of marriage to civic life is immense. Strong families based on committed couples build strong communities and a stable society. The law should encourage this commitment.

Some hold as a religious belief that homosexuality is a choice. Science points to the contrary, as do centuries of prejudice against homosexuality: Historically, being gay rarely has brought individuals a special benefit in society.

Affirming a right to same-sex marriage over the long run would increase acceptance of the reality that sexual orientation is predetermined - like race and ethnicity, it may be hidden, but it can't be changed. Legal discrimination of the kind embodied in Proposition 8 discourages tolerance and can foster hate crimes.

This summer, judges and other Bay Area officials empowered to perform weddings have been overwhelmed with joyous occasions. Couples who've been together 20, 30 and 40 years are coming forward to exchange vows. They don't need marriage to prove their commitment, but the legal bond means a great deal, as it should.

All couples who exchange vows know, in their own hearts, the depth and spiritual meaning of their union. That is for them, not others, to determine. The law should not discriminate in marriage. And Californians should not amend their constitution to take away a human right it now confers. Vote no on Proposition 8.

IT said...

Thank you, Leonardo. That OpEd is spot on.

we're dealing with a rather worrisome issue right now, which we hope will evaporate (as these things mostly do) but of course, it may not...

in any case, it reminds me (as if I need reminding) how important, solid, and vital our partnership--our MARRIAGE--is, and how offensive it is for someone, anyone, to devalue it based on the trivial fact of our gender.

Any straight couple would be lucky to find the equivalent soulmates that my BP and I are to each other. And sex has nothing to do with that.

IT

Chino Blanco said...

LDS 'Yes on 8' Game Plan

I've posted a letter sent from Boyd K. Packer on July 28th to the California LDS stake presidents:

BKP July 28

Apparently, there is a plan in place to put up one million 'Yes on 8' yard signs at 7:00 am on September 22nd.