Blog Archives
New Article @ DS&P Magazine: Who’s Your Daddy? Guess What? It’s Not the Government.
So I’m a lesbian and I’d like to get married one day, but the difference between me and the “marriage equality” kooks on the left (and a few on the right) is that I reject the idea that the government needs to be involved in that marriage at all and I would feel the same way if I was straight.
Here’s a question for conservatives who are in favor of gay marriage (or, in fact, in favor of the government being involved in marriage at all). Why do you need to government to validate your relationship?
No, the president can’t ban gay marriage, abortion, or birth control. Can we move on now?
I received this question on tumblr yesterday.
And I realized, much to my dismay, that people really don’t understand this process. Here is my answer and I wanted to share it here as well, in the hopes that more people will understand this process.
And hopefully understand why this argument that “You shouldn’t vote for Romney or he will outright ban gay marriage, abortion, and birth control” is completely false, not just because he believes in state’s rights, but because that simply isn’t within his power.
___________________________________________
Banning any of those things would be unconstitutional.
Now you may bring up DOMA here, but DOMA, while there is an argument about whether it is constitutional or not, was not a ban. DOMA basically meant that divorces and marriages did not have to be recognized across state lines, if a same-sex married couple moved from a state where their marriage was recognized to a state that did not have same-sex marriage.
So to ban something like that would take a constitutional amendment so that it wouldn’t be a unconstitutional. You following so far?
An amendment on one of those things would never happen. Here is why.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
The amendment on those topics would never be proposed by 2/3s of the House and Senate or by 2/3s of the states.
And even if one was proposed, it wouldn’t be passed because:
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
Do you really think 38 states would agree to such an amendment? Not likely.
Democrats now have gay marriage on their platform
*packs bags to switch political camps*
Or not.
Because I’m not a moron.*
First of all, you are a gay person and think this means that the Democratic party cares about you one iota, you are naive…and a moron.
Just the same way you are a moron if you think that Obama’s jury-rigged, executive order dream act (which not even top officials at ICE agree with) means they care about illegal immigrants.
As Mark Steyn, over at National Review, put it: You are the Democrats house pets. You are convenient now, but the moment you aren’t good for their cause they will cut off all the favors and nice words.
As an exercise in sheer political muscle, it’s impressive. But, if you’re a feminist or a gay or any of the other house pets in the Democrat menagerie, you might want to look at Rahm Emanuel’s pirouette, and Menino’s coziness with Islamic homophobia. These guys are about power, and right now your cause happens to coincide with their political advantage. But political winds shift. Once upon a time, Massachusetts burned witches. Now it grills chicken-sandwich homophobes. One day it’ll be something else. Already in Europe, in previously gay-friendly cities like Amsterdam, demographically surging Muslim populations have muted leftie politicians’ commitment to gay rights, feminism, and much else. It’s easy to cheer on the thugs when they’re thuggish in your name. What happens when Emanuel’s political needs change?
Liberal politicians regularly cozy up to Islam, a religion which, the the countries where it runs the show, encourages institutionalized hatred of women and homosexuals. Want to talk about American culture ‘blaming rape victims’? Let’s talk about women being whipped for being raped in Muslim cultures under Sharia law, the law of Islam.
In Muslim countries, homosexuality is still a punishable offense with either prison or death being the punishments in most cases. In Iran, only months ago, 4 gay men were hanged for being homosexuals.
But liberals have an uncomfortable habit of viewing Islam as “an unfairly maligned religion of peace” as Sam Harris pointed out earlier this year.
But hey, no need to worry about that, because liberals will let us get married! Don’t worry about the fact that the groups which they considered allies (The Muslim Brotherhood), support (Hamas), and protect (Iran), are all in a hurry to kill or imprison all of us.
No need to make a stir over the fact that the same Boston mayor (Tom Menino) who said “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail” in reference to the owner of Chick-fil-A saying he supports traditional marriage, also have given $1.8 million of municipal land to the new mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston. Who lists Yusuf-al-Qaradawi as a trustee.
In case you don’t know who that is, he’s a man whose tolerant view of homosexuality led him to say “Some say we should throw [homosexuals] from a high place, [s]ome say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement. . . . The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.”
Yeah, no cause to worry about what liberals REALLY think about gay people.
No reason to think they only want to support us for as long as we are useful.
Because, hey, they say they are going to put gay marriage on their platform.
______________________________________________________________
*Also, it would helps because I don’t support gay marriage, but if you read my blog you already know that…I hope.
Keep your personal opinions out of my bedroom.
For those of you who are confused. No, I haven’t suddenly morphed into a liberal. (At least 2 people have permission to perform a cognitive recalibration [aka hit me really hard on the head]* if that ever happens.)
You see, it’s very hard to get me really invested in the same-sex marriage debate, since I’m a person that doesn’t believe that marriage should be a government contract at all. I think, as that post says, that there should be civil union on the government level and marriage on a religious level. It’s a simple solution that leaves nobody with what they actual want, but that’s what compromise, on a political level, is really about.
The very morning that this news occurred, I was writing a post about why Obama’s “evolving” views on gay marriage did not impress me. Luckily nothing I was planning to write in that post needs to be changed, because I’m still not impressed.
I’ve pointed out before that for a President, who has such a singular disregard for the 10th amendment, to claim he sees marriage equality as a ‘states’ rights issue’ is more than a little suspect.
While it may be hard to criticize his view on this particular topic, as I share the feeling that this is a state level issue, this really goes back to consistency and the willingness to do what you believe, instead of saying one thing and doing another as a way to ensure campaign donations. Forgive me if I find it hard to believe that this was not a timed and orchestrated ‘confession’ of support, but zero action, on the President’s part. Timed after the vote on North Carolina’s ‘Amendment 1′ and just before the Washington Post’s questionably researched hatchet job about Romney prep school years.**
_______________________________________________________________
But the real issue is that I just don’t give a flying flip what Obama personally feels about gay marriage, just as I don’t give a flying flip what Romney personally feels about gay marriage or gay people.
The proof is in the actions you take, not in the personal “evolution’ if how you feel about a topic.
Obama is still refusing to repeal DOMA and the only other actions the LGBT community can point to is the repeal of DADT, which was not even Obama’s doing. Congress passed the repeal, Obama merely signed it. Despite promises in 2008 to repeal DADT, Obama waited until he lost the House in 2010 to begin his attempt this repeal, instead spending the first 2 years of his term (when he had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate) to shove a healthcare “reform” bill, that the American people overwhelmingly did not support.
Let’s consider Romney now. He is against same sex marriage on a personal level. Something which has been the case for a long time. Despite this, he did not suspend his action to do what was legally correct when it came to signing same sex marriage into law in Massachusetts when he was governor. When asked his opinion, he gave it honestly, instead of hemming and hawing and making excuses about “evolving” views.
That’s why the title of this post is “Keep your personal opinions out of my bedroom.” because that is what I ask from all politicians, whether I agree with their personal views or not, because I am well aware that others may not agree with that view even if I am convinced that I am 100% correct in my views. The key is not to rely on your personal view of the situation, but what is actually the right way for the government to handle the situation, based on our constitution and laws.
So, no President Obama, your “evolution” does not impress me, nor should it impress any of the gay community. The members of the gay community who have swooned and cheered at your “support” should take care to not become puppets in failing President’s scheme to gain more campaign funds and another term to cause more harm to our economy and the American way of life.
_______________________________________________________________
For another, beautifully eloquent, article on this issue, please check out J. Michael Heilig’s post over at the Politify Online blog.
Our President has proven himself inadequate to lead this nation. In spite of the deficit, a failing economy, rising inflation, a continuing war effort, nuclear threats from Iran, strained ties with foreign allies, the death of labor jobs in the US and a job market that is all but dead, and the many other woes that face our families day in and day out our President remains aloof. He is more concerned with birth control and marriage and other social issues. Why is this? Why is this man’s mind so narrow? It is because he is pandering to minority voters.Shame on anyone who supports this administration for it’s stance on social issues! Shame on anyone who denies the Obama record and votes for this man on the merit of his word! Shame on anyone who goes to the polls not knowing fully what this President stands for! And shame on those who have turned their backs on the American people and vote in blind obedience to a party system that has failed both you and I as well as everyone else in this suffering nation! Shame on all of you because you have cast your vote in ignorance! Shame on you for taking for granted the rights that the founders of this nation bestowed upon you to select our leaders and for using these rights to elect a man who ignores the plight of his people!
________________________________________________________________
*AVENGERS QUOTE!
**Which I don’t mind saying, even with my limited studies of journalism, is the most rambling, incoherent, hatchet job I have read in a long time.
Talk about Cognitive Dissonance, Next thing you know they’ll be setting up donations for the Muslim Brotherhood (via Myself @ OutRight Patriots)
“How can you support a group that doesn’t even support equal rights for you?”
I know I’m not the only gay conservative who has been asked this question. I’ve given a myriad of responses, depending on my mood, ranging from “I prefer not to be thought of an ass who can be guided using a ‘carrot on a stick’ approach” to “being able to get married to another woman is not really my biggest worry at this moment in time” or whole discussions on why marriage shouldn’t be in the purview of the government at all and discussions on why this ridiculous view that all Republicans and all Democrats feel the same way about gay people.
But now I have to return the question to Seattle’s LGBT commission (or at least a small part of it).
How can you support a country, run by religious zealots, where you would be murdered for being gay?
I mean, you (and most of the other LGBT organizations in this country) seem to be absolutely furious with the idea that you might be slightly inconvenienced (yes, inconvenienced, because with a little more work the majority of marital rights can be yours with a trip to a lawyer) by your inability to get married in some states.
Yet, for some reason, you are out there protesting Israel (the most ‘gay friendly’ country in the Middle East) and supporting Palestine (who is controlled by Hamas, who I already pointed out would happily murder you).
New, original, post by me for my joint blog OutRight Patriots. Click the link for the rest of the post.
Governor Christie’s veto was the right thing to do. (via OutRight Patriots and MeredithAncret)
If you are a gay conservative, or if you have read my personal blog before, then my opinion on this topic should come as no surprise to you
.Putting this on the ballot is the right decision for many reasons, the most obvious of which is that people don’t like having social change rammed down their throats…if you’ll pardon that turn of phrase in reference to gay marriage.
Blog from my new conservative GLBT group blog.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 “Is everything detestable to these people?”
It’s been a while since I worked on this series. Even longer for those of you reading this on my personal blog (The Snark Who Hunts Back) as opposed to the articles on Queerlandia. (Yes, they are posted in both places. It’s relevant to both blogs).
Here is the review of the original documentary that this information comes from, for the most part.
And the first 3 sections of verses. Genesis 1:1-31, Genesis 2, Genesis 19:1-29.
I’m writing about both Leviticus verses in one post today. Each verse on it’s own would be terribly short and both have some similar issues.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
- Leviticus 18:22
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
- Leviticus 20:13
Before we get to bogged down in analysis of this verse, I would like to mention that Leviticus 18 (in fact all of Leviticus) is a lot more complicated than a simple book of the Bible that tells a story like the Gospels, or Esther or Ruth (my two favorite books of the Bible, if you want to know). It is ritual and theological moral and legal code that was devised to govern the priest class (Levites) and the other tribes of Israel. The code was established by people interpreting theological ritual into rules for a society. I know of no serious Biblical scholar that refers to Leviticus as a book that was “inspired” by god.
Now that we have that out of the way.
Let’s talk about the actual meaning of these verses.
First we hear from Reverend Gregory Dell and Dr. Amy Jill Levine on the purpose behind these two particular verses.
The purity codes, the holiness codes from which Leviticus 18 is taken had a very specific design. And that design was to help distinguish themselves from the other cultures and faiths around them.
- Reverend Gregory Dell
The text is interested in categories and everyone and everything fits into an appropriate category. The categories do not mix.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
Then of course there is the constant issue that we find with Leviticus.
All we ever hear about from religious fundamentalists is “homosexuality is an abomination – Leviticus 18:22″.
What they seem to forget, is that Leviticus was a code of conduct for a people group over 2,000 years ago and they had a lot of funky ideas about proper behavior and what was an “abomination”.
[I]f one in the church must insist on using Leviticus then it seems only appropriate for those members of the Christian church to look at other laws in Leviticus.
*
To pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws not to follow, at the very least we need to determine why are we choosing this law and not that law.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
In chapter 18 of Leviticus alone there are at least 19 prohibitions against different types of sexual relations.
That’s not to mention the incredible amount of truly odd things that are mentioned in the book (as well as the rest of the Old Testament) as being “abominations” and “detestable” outside of sex.*
One of the prohibitions mentioned specifically in the documentary is Leviticus 18:19.
“‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.”
When this is mentioned, Pastor David Ickes had this to say.
Okay, but still, how does that support homosexuality? All that does is tell me that we should start preaching against people sleeping with their wives on their cycle. That doesn’t give you any justification whatsoever.
Okay, so here is where I earn the name of my personal blog, because hoo-boy does this comment deserve a lot of snark.
Where do I start? (this could almost be a blog of it’s own).
First thing. He says “people sleeping with their wives”. People? Shouldn’t that be “men sleeping with their wives.”? For someone that is all about heterosexual marriage, he’s being very PC in his language.
Secondly, the point wasnotthat the sheer number of silly prohibitions invalidated the one about homosexuality. (We’ll get to that later). The point was that you can’t run around preaching that homosexuality is an abomination and ignore all the other rules that you and your congregation are breaking without looking like a horribly hypocrite.
If there is one thing that I truly hate in this world, it’s a hypocrite. I don’t use the word ‘hate’ lightly.
Third. So why don’t you preach to men and tell them not to have sex with their wives during their period or the 7 days after it?
Try it. You’ll be laughed off the pulpit. People are happy to listen to prohibitions on other people’s sex lives, but a pastor who starts telling people how and when to have sex with their spouse and you will be out of a parish really damn quick.
That’s the same reason why most churches, even the American Catholic church, barely even look askance at divorce anymore. Or remarriage after divorce. That second one, specifically, carries a penalty of death in the Bible.
Okay, now I’ll leave Ickes alone. He’s not all that bright it seems, but that isn’t the point of this post.
Here’s where the real issue of this verse becomes clear.
This verse isn’t, just like the rest of these verses, talking about homosexuality at all.
What Leviticus actually says is “A man shall not lie with a man, as a woman”. In other words ‘a man shall not treat another man, sexually, as if that other man were female.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
Greek homosexuality had the same concept. Men were not women, you could have sex with them, but you couldn’t treat them like a women. You could even have a relationship with another man (as women could with women, y’know…Sappho) but that man would not be another women. He was intrinsically going to be more than a women, based on that culture, and he would be more your equal.
Every woman in that time was the property of some man. A part of the way you claimed and made this property your own was the consummation of the marriage through intercourse. If you have sex with a virgin who isn’t properly betrothed to you, you have damaged another mane’s property. So all of thsi is really just property law and according to the understanding of this law code a man cannot own another man like that.
- Reverend Dr. Fred Neidner
Guess what…you can’t own anyone that way in this country in this day and age. So does that make heterosexual marriage invalid as well?
*List compiled at Canyonwalker Connections by Kathy.
The Prop 8 Decision and Why It Hurts Gay Rights
So the Prop 8 Court decision came in a few weeks ago and along with the Birth Control Mandate helped push Rick Santorum up in the polls.
And the gay rights community rejoiced. Which I found odd, as usually, people don’t rejoice in their own downfall (ignoring the Obama inauguration and mythical behavior of Nero). Wait, ruling that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional is bad for gay rights?
How the hell did Santorum win 3 primaries? And what did California’s 9th circuit court have to do with it.
I know, he won three states that have nothing do with California.
However, 2 days ago the was a court decision was made by the California 9th Circuit Court that declared Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional.
I’m not writing this post to celebrate or nay-say that decision.
I’m writing it to draw attention to something that I’ve been speculating on since Tuesday night.
Despite his close race with Romney in Iowa at the end of last year, Santorum is not doing well in popular opinion. Though he has the second highest number of delegates already won. 72 to Romney’s 112, Gingrich’s 32, and Paul’s 9. (On a side note, who else is thinking that Paul and Gingrich need to bow out now?)
However, somehow he swung 3 states in a single night. Now, while I could simply assume that this means Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado are populated by functioning morons/lunatics…I think there might be another explanation.
The very same day this insanity happened, only hours earlier, the California 9th circuit court opened the door for same-sex marriage to once again begin in their state.
In a panicked state, fearing for the state of traditional marriage and “OH DEAR GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN”, the social conservatives (who may or may not be fiscal/constitutional conservatives) turned and ran to vote for the most socially conservative (and least American) of the GOP candidates.
You know, lemmings do that same thing and they usually end up over the edge of a cliff.*
*okay, that’s a misconception, but they often drown while trying to cross large bodies of water while migrating.
We have it in us to be the better men.
Professor Charles Xavier: We have it in us to be the better man
Erik Lehnsherr: We already are. We are the next stage of human evolution, you said it yourself.
Oh I can already hear your grumblings. “Great, she’s doing another X-men/Gay rights comparison. Isn’t she ever going to get tired of comparing these two things?”
Short answer: No.
However, this post isn’t about gay rights so much as it is about how the gay community in general (the gay liberal community specifically) is missing their chance to be the better men in this scenario.
Erik Lensherr was wrong, being a mutant didn’t make him any better than non-mutants. Just as we, the gay community, are not better, more tolerant, or more deserving of respect, simply by virtue of being gay. Put away that victim card, stop playing it. If someone criticizes your belief, your behavior, your politics, or your attitude, the response of “but I’m gay!” or “You’re only saying this because your self-loathing/homophobic” is irrelevant and smacks of asking for special privileges to act however you want because you were bullied as a child, maybe your parents tried to “pray away the gay”, or you aren’t able to marry who you want.
Let me tell you right now, I don’t really fucking care about your sob story. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has one. It’s not an excuse to treat others like shit.
In fact it should be the reason that you treat others better than you were treated. I know the glbt and liberal community have (in general) no great love for the Bible or Christianity, but maybe a refresher course on The Golden Rule is in order.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Matthew 7:12
It doesn’t say “Do into others as you think they will do unto you” or “Do unto others as others have done unto you”. And maybe you aren’t a Christian, that’s fine, neither am I, but at the very least this one verse is one that should be followed.
And when I say that we are losing the opportunity to be the better men, it is because the gay community insists on returning hate to those that disagree with them and, on occasion, hate them. I don’t deny that there are those out there who actively hate gay people, but having a difference of opinion doesn’t equal hate and it doesn’t deserve hate in return. In fact, true hate does not deserve hate in return. In light of tomorrow’s holiday, I will quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.”
Why do I choose today to say these things? Because in the last couple of days, a fellow gay conservative blogger, The Gay Republican (aka Ethan Sabo), has come under extreme and hateful fire from the left. I don’t always agree with all of his ideas, nor do I always support all the same things that he supports. We have a difference on opinion on several social topics such as abortion and even our ideas on gay marriage differ in some ways. His support of Santorum I do not understand, as Santorum is one of the least Conservative candidates on display currently. I’m also not a fan of Ron Paul, for several reasons.
However those differences in opinion are things that we occasionally discuss. We both have good, strong reasons for believing what we do and the odds of us changing each other’s opinions is slight at best. We do not insult each other, we rationally discuss our differences, and agree to disagree on those occasions that we differ in opinion.
Now I understand that there are rational gay liberals, I know a few personally, who would not stoop to the insults, vulgarity, and hatefulness that Ethan has received. However that doesn’t change what has happened to him, what happens to me in comments and emails as a result of this blog, or what happens to other gay conservatives who dare to stand up and make their beliefs known.
In Japan they have a saying, “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” It means that if you are part of a group and you insist on having different beliefs, political views, or attitudes than the rest of the group and you make them obvious, the rest of the group, the majority, will pound at you until you get back in line with the rest of the group…or just sit down and shut up.
Sorry, I insist on being the nail that sticks up and the squeaky wheel in the machine of the gay political movement. Someone has to be and I’m proud to be that person, along with Ethan Sabo, Mel Maguire, and all the other gay conservatives out there who daily stand up for their beliefs, no matter how unpopular they are and no matter how hurt they may feel by the hateful words that get thrown at them for those beliefs.
In closing, here are some of the videos that have sparked this backlash at The Gay Republican.
One of the amazing things I would like to comment on, is that gay conservatives can receive such levels of abuse from comments and then, when we defend ourselves like Ethan does in this next video. WE are accused of being the hateful ones.
And finally, a response to the hate, made by Mel Maguire from Gay Conservative.
