As more states—like Iowa—approve same-sex “marriage,” conservatives are claiming that freedom of religion is in peril. Same-sex “marriage” supporters accuse them of engaging in hysterical gay-bating. Who’s telling the truth?
Let me share some stories with you from an excellent news broadcast produced by National Public Radio. Then you decide.
Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. This Methodist group told the women they could not “marry” in any building used for religious purposes. The Rev. Scott Hoffman said a theological principle—that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman—was at stake.
The women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First Amendment protected their right to practice their faith without being punished by the government. But punish the Methodists is exactly what New Jersey did. It revoked their tax exemption—a move that cost them $20,000.
Then there’s the case of the Christian physicians who refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship. The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment. But that wasn’t good enough. The woman sued. The California Supreme Court agreed with the woman, saying that the doctors’ religious beliefs didn’t give them the right to refuse the controversial treatment.
In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. They chose correctly—get out of the business.
In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor’s employers fired her—a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing, in keeping with the school’s orthodox Jewish teachings. But in 2001, the New York State Supreme Court forced them to do so anyway—even though New York has no same-sex “marriage” law.
In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony—and sued the photographer when she declined. An online adoption service was forced to stop doing business in California when a same-sex couple sued the service for refusing, on religious grounds, to assist them.
Convinced? Clearly, homosexual “marriage” and religious liberty cannot co-exist—because gay activists will not allow them to. As marriage expert Maggie Gallagher puts it, same-sex “marriage” advocates claim that religious faith “itself is a form of bigotry.”
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
APA revises 'gay gene' theory Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/14/2009 6:30:00 AMBookmark and Share
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."
That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
Peter LaBarberaPeter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.
"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda."
Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. "Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they've lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization," he states.
With the new information from the APA, Barber wonders if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
"I'm entitled to the same paper you have," Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell, an openly gay lawmaker who championed the bill said, referring to the marriage certificate he needs in order to wed his longtime partner. He said hes been engaged for 28 years.
I guess there's just one thing that Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell is missing. He already is "entitled to the same paper" that I have. He just has to follow the same rules I did and find a woman who would agree to marry him. In fact, any person has that entitlement. As long as you can find someone that is not the same sex as yourself that will agree to go down to the city hall and sign paperwork with you, you have the right to get the paper. What he's looking for is MORE than anybody's ever received before.
Practice homosexuality, but don’t call it a marriage
Re gay marriage: During the last elec tion, California, Arizona, and Florida all passed constitutional amendments stat ing that marriage is between a man and a woman. That brings the number of states to have such amendments to 30. The only states that have legalized gay marriage are ones where judges, not the public at large, have made it legal. Much of the discussion about gay marriage is about rights. Since marriage is a social contract licensed by the state, it is not a right but a privilege given by the state. It is the states’ duty to promote what the people at large think the society they live in should be like. Then there is the question of who is to judge what is right or wrong about gay marriage. This is nothing but a red herring. Judgments are made every day concerning social issues, ranging from speeders to sex offenders. Doesn’t society have to right to judge what proper conduct is and how to deal with it? Civil rights laws are based on immutable physical attributes of individuals. Things like race, sex, origin of birth, and physical disabilities. These are intrinsic qualities of an individual who cannot change them. Choosing which gender and what form of sexual relations to have is a choice. And when there is a choice, there is a judgment to be made if that choice is proper or not. It is not a civil right; it is a question if it is within the scope of the law. What people want to do in private is their own business. I do not promote banning gay sex. [But] the government should not force others to make it socially and legally acceptable by offering the privilege of a social contract to people who make such a choice.
I guess there's just one thing that Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell is missing. He already is "entitled to the same paper" that I have. He just has to follow the same rules I did and find a woman who would agree to marry him. In fact, any person has that entitlement. As long as you can find someone that is not the same sex as yourself that will agree to go down to the city hall and sign paperwork with you, you have the right to get the paper. What he's looking for is MORE than anybody's ever received before.
EXCELLENT ANALOGY!! I must say that I never thought of it this way. But you are correct.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I agree Kevin.....so get 'married' to a woman(that's the rule) then do whatever you want with in your marriage.....no one really cares.....I dont even care if you do it in public......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Re May 10 article, “What’s next? Marriage benefits for bigamists and polygamists?” by Daniel T. Weaver: When I read this article online at 4 a.m. on May 10, all I could think of is that the basic premise on which Daniel is basing his Op-ed piece is flawed. I think the piece is very well written and makes a great many good points, especially about the motives of Gov. Paterson. Even though the governor had mentioned proposing a same-sex marriage law when he first entered office and his public approval polls were high, it now seems the governor’s motives stem from more recent poll results. Regardless of the governor’s past or present motivation, a same-sex marriage law is still the right idea. However, Daniel’s premise that bigamists and polygamists are being discriminated against in the same ways as gays is flawed in that the former are not denied the right to marry one person under state law, while the latter — gays — are denied that right. If bigamists and polygamists want to marry multiple partners of the same sex, then by extension of Daniel’s premise, you could say bigamists and polygamists have an issue, albeit belief-based rather than legal. But it would not be that they are being denied the same rights others enjoy under the present marriage law or even a same-sex marriage law. The premise of the same-sex marriage law is one person marrying another regardless of sexual orientation, to make gays equal under the state law and able to take advantage of the right that already exists for opposite-sex couples.
Parents fight homosexual indoctrination of kindergarteners Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/16/2009 4:00:00 AM
A California school district seems intent on teaching pre-school children to accept the homosexual lifestyle.
The Alameda Unified School District announced it was considering a supplemental curriculum to eradicate "homophobia" in kindergarten children. Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), said the meeting room for the public session earlier this week was overcrowded with angry parents.
"Nowhere at anytime did it give any protection for children being bullied because of their faith, their religion, their size, their race, ethnicity," he points out. "It is only going to give this special anti-bullying protection for homosexuals and transsexuals."
Dacus said an attorney from PJI spoke before the board meeting. "And [the attorney] made it very clear that this is an abridgement and an affront to the neutral role that school districts are supposed to play in respecting the rights of parents and not to engage in such overt and open indoctrination and mandatory acceptance of such controversial, immoral lifestyles," he concludes.
Parents cannot opt out their children from the curriculum. Dacus says it is important to remember that the children are kindergarten age, and many cannot even write their names -- yet they are being taught that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.
I had to respond to Sean Dufresne’s May 15 letter [“Bible clear in opposition to homosexuality”], regarding his interpretation of the Bible and samesex marriage. On the opposite page is a tiny blurb about New Hampshire likely to become the sixth state to recognize such unions. While it thrills me to see this country (very) slowly making progress in this matter, bigotry and fear obviously still loom large. Mr. Dufresne points out that this is a country based on Christian beliefs. Well, that was true about 235 years ago, when it was settled by white Christian Europeans (who also thought slavery was acceptable and women did not deserve equal rights). Since then, it has become a country based on freedom from persecution of any kind, filled with people of all races, creeds, nationalities, religions and beliefs — and not all of them are Christians. I do not understand what has the Christian right so terrified, and why they think their beliefs are the only correct ones. My partner and I have been together 14 years, we have raised a child together, bought a house, hold full-time jobs, we pay our taxes and consider ourselves to be a pretty normal family unit. However if something were to happen to either of us, we would not have the same rights as those with a so-called “traditional marriage.” What do Mr. Dufresne and his ilk think will happen if we suddenly have a paper legitimizing our union? Does he think the gay community is going to take over and convert his children? Calling a same-sex relationship “fl at out disgusting” is both insulting and ignorant. One hundred years ago, a black man would not have been allowed to marry a white woman. One hundred years ago that white woman would not have been allowed to have a vote in such matters Progress moves forward. All people deserve to love whomever they wish without hatred and bigotry standing in the way. The New York state Senate is now in the process of deciding the fate of the gay marriage bill. Let’s hope openmindedness and the pursuit of freedom win out.
Thank you for publishing such interesting letters. I applaud Mr. Hunt’s May 7 letter [“Don’t use Bible to oppose gay marriage”], which responded to Ms. Snavely’s April 30 letter [“Same-sex marriage doesn’t cut it in the Bible”]. She wanted us to dust off our Bibles and especially take note of what Leviticus 18:22 says about homosexuality, namely that it is an “abomination.” Following her advice I read further and was informed that God instructs us to put to death anyone who engages in such acts (20:13), along with anyone who curses his father or his mother (:9), every man who commits adultery (:10) or incest (:11). Then I thanked my lucky stars that we live in a nation which separates church and state, or as Mr. Hunt puts it, keeps the Bible out of our lawmaking. Finally, the proper response to Mr. Dufresne’s May 15 letter, which claims that our country was built on Christian values, is to note that it is more correct to say that our country was founded on constitutional values, chief among the requirement that our government is forbidden from establishing religion in any shape or form.
Even if everyone takes religion out of this issue.....it is clearly against even the law of nature.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Re May 16 letter, “Practice homosexuality, but don’t call it a marriage”: Daniel Moran makes several curious claims in his letter arguing against gay marriage, but the silliest of them is that there are no civil rights issues involved — inasmuch as “Civil rights laws are based on immutable physical attributes like race, sex, origin of birth and physical disabilities,” whereas “choosing which gender and what form of sexual relations to have is a choice.” Really? As a straight man, I don’t recall choosing my sexuality. Does Mr. Moran remember the day he chose to be straight?
Mr. Weaver’s logic (May 10 op-ed, “What’s next? Marriage benefits for bigamists and polygamists?”) is not only flawed but specious as a rationalization for his homophobia; a rationalization based on his intolerant religious beliefs and not of concern for marriage or gender rights. If it takes a “hypocrite” to recognize one, then Mr. Weaver is eminently qualified. On one hand he avers that gender identity is a matter of personal choice, not biology; on the other he has opposed any choice for women in procreation, i.e. contraception, birth control, abortion, etc. By the way, Mr. Weaver, of the estimated 50,000 bigamists/polygamists in the United States, how many are “families” of husbands led by women?
Logged
