You can tell a lot about the militant gay community by observing the behavior of those who oppose California’s Proposition 8. The anti-Prop 8 crowd must be coming unhinged, judging from this story of a violent attack perpetrated yesterday against a Prop 8 supporter, in Modesto, California.
PRNewswire reports a violent attack against a Prop 8 supporter, on Sunday, October 12, in Modesto, California:
In a violent display of intolerance, an opponent of Proposition 8 attacked and seriously injured a man who was volunteering on Sunday” to distribute Pro-Proposition 8 signs:
Prop. 8 supporter, Jose Nunez, 37, was brutally assaulted while waiting . . . after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.
The assailant grabbed about 75 signs and yelled at Nunez accusingly, “What do you have against gays!” Although Nunez replied that he had nothing against gays, he was attacked anyway. The assailant punched Nunez in the left eye and ran off with the signs.
Nunez, his eye dripping with blood . . . was rushed by ambulance to a local hospital where he received 16 stitches under his eye.
“It’s outrageous that the No campaign calls themselves the voice of tolerance and moderation and wants people to feel bad for supporting Prop. 8. There was nothing tolerant or moderate about beating up Jose,” said ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 press secretary Chip White. “Clearly the man who attacked Jose is intolerant of those who support traditional marriage,” White added.
The other side wants to intimidate us, but we can’t stop standing up for traditional marriage. I may be bloody and bruised, but I’m not giving up. Protecting traditional marriage is just too important for our kids,” said Nunez, the father of three children, ages 9, 5, and 3. “I don’t want my kids taught in public school that same sex-marriage is the same as traditional marriage,” Nunez added.
Nunez immigrated, legally, from Mexico only two months ago. Bienvenidos a los Estados Unidos! Ojala que el futuro le trate mejor que el presente en su nuevo pais.
As we have previously highlighted in relation to Massachusetts, Nunez’ fear — that gay marriage legalization will lead to his children being force-fed gay propaganda in school — is well-founded.
The Massachusetts story was followed just days ago by a school teacher in San Francisco who took her first-grade students to attend a gay wedding as part of their school program. In that instance, because it was a “field trip”, parents were reportedly given notice and permitted to opt out. The teacher called it a “teachable moment.” Indeed. I wonder when the children were last taken to a traditional protestant, Catholic or Jewish wedding.*
More at PRNewswire.
*Traditional Mormon marriages are solemnized in temples in ceremonies not typically attended by children. Not sure how the FLDS handle weddings, so I’ll leave it to FLDS readers to clarify as desired.
{ 117 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
The Gay/Straight Alliance does actively recruit on high school and jr. high campuses. Not sure if toasters are part of the deal. If they are, do you want in?
Jefferson said: “I believe Methodists and Catholics do. And if the photographers, caterers and fertility specialists work for the Federal, State, County, City or other government, then yes they do.”
I like to see stats on monies given to churches by the government. It seems like there would be a huge uproar about “church and state”, if that were the case. Not sure why you’d want to be married by someone who doesn’t want to marry you, anyway. Pretty sure the photogs, caterers and FSs we’re talking about aren’t government employees or on the dole in any sense.
I don’t think there should be a difference in the penalty for a crime, regardless of who the perpetrator or the victim is. I don’t care if they are black, white or gay, if someone does something violent the penalty should be the same, across the board.
FairyDogMother,
“The Gay/Straight Alliance does actively recruit on high school and jr. high campuses.” = I give you the GSA’s Mission Statement:
‘Mission Statement
Gay-Straight Alliance Network is a youth leadership organization that connects school-based Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) to each other and community resources. Through peer support, leadership development, and training, GSA Network supports young people in starting, strengthening, and sustaining GSAs and builds the capacity of GSAs to:
1. create safe environments in schools for students to support each other and learn about homophobia and other oppressions,
2. educate the school community about homophobia, gender identity, and sexual orientation issues, and
3. fight discrimination, harassment, and violence in schools.’
“I like to see stats on monies given to churches by the government.” = Have you heard of Bush’s Faith Based Initiative??? From there: ‘Faith-based organizations were welcomed as a central part of this work, winning more than 3,200 grants in 2007 totaling over $2.2 billion.’
“Not sure why you’d want to be married by someone who doesn’t want to marry you, anyway.” = We didn’t!
That’s why we had a dear friend marry us, who was authorized by the state of California. I don’t understand why anyone would want to force someone to participate in something they don’t believe in. Almost all of the gay community as a whole would not want to force someone to do something they wouldn’t want to. IE: If I needed our yard redone, and the first contractor I picked was for Prop 8, then I would simply use the yellow pages to find another one!
“I don’t think there should be a difference in the penalty for a crime, regardless of who the perpetrator or the victim is. I don’t care if they are black, white or gay, if someone does something violent the penalty should be the same, across the board.” = I’m a little torn on this one. I agree that all crimes of the same nature should be treated equally, but it’s hard to sit and watch some people get away with little time for egregious acts.
The only connections I can see between either the Methodists or the Catholics, in the U.S., have to do with fudning for faith based community initiatives, in other words, the government assists churches with funding for them to do projects that benefit the community. The churches are providing the labor with their congregations, and the government provides the money for the material resources. For example, when our congregation provided the labor to place mulch around the trees along a major highway, the city government provided the mulch. In some cases, when presented with a proposal, the govenment may provide a grant to purchase the required materials as opposed to just providing the materials.
http://gbgm-umc.org/news/2001/june/faith.doc
“Both major presidential candidates in the 2000 national election spoke enthusiastically about an expanded role for faith-based organizations in public social service and community improvement programs. Al Gore, the Democrat, and George W. Bush, the Republican, each reflected a widely held perspective that government needs Apartners@ to achieve the objectives of social legislation effectively. They pointed to the strong track records of religious social ministries and to precedents for faith-based use of government dollars for the general benefit. In addition, a provision in the 1996 welfare reform act strengthened the case for greater access to public funds by religious organizations that provide public services.”
I’ve also found some links that express a concern about vouchers being used to pay tuition to religious private schools, if the U.S. ever went to a voucher system.
And, in Canada Catholic Schools receive funding from the federal government under an agreement established in the early days, when Catholics were greatly outnumbered by Protestants.
I’m interested in hearing what Jefferson & Co. have to say in response to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover. I think Satinover pretty much drives a stake through every one of their arguments.
TimEnchanter,
I just want to say that I really do appreciate the polite manner in which you have conversed here. No, it is unlikely that anything you said changed the mind of anyone reading. Our convictions on this end of the debate are as strong as yours at your end. But, you offered your thoughts and arguments with sincerity, and—most importantly–without anger. I respect you for that. God Bless.
I agree, Tim. Thank you.
Tim and all, I just noticed Tim’s comment about people being unhappy with their own lives and using homosexuals as scapegoats. Just so you know, I am actually quite happy with my life and would much rather be living it than discussing this issue or worrying about politics at all. I don’t need or want any scapegoats for anything. But, because some homosexuals are “in your face” and always trying to push homosexuality to the forefront of public discussion, I feel like I have to be in here pushing the other way. At what point do you suppose we will all be able to live and let live?
FairyDogMother,
I completely agree as well! I know we probably won’t change your minds, but it’s good for each of us to help each other at least see each others point of view. I think the biggest point of contention on our side is the fact that gay marriage is already law in California. Over 11,000 couples have already applied, and through their church/pastor/priest/minister/judge/officiant, have had a ceremony and received a certified certificate of marriage in this state. And what Prop 8 would do is take that away from so many happy couples. It would also be the first time in history that the California state constitution had rights taken away from a group of people. Those 2 main things are are what energize us.
I know there are a ton of issues that have been brought up, on each side, but for us, those are the real issues at heart. And they dig deep into our core as human beings. It hurts us to think that people want to take away something of mine that I hold dear and true.
I should just leave it at this: Again, it is already the law, no matter how it came to be, it is still the law, and a yes vote on 8 would be ratifying the State of California’s Constitution in a way that has never been done before, removing someones rights, however wrong or right you believe they are, it’s still taking something away.
Jefferson –
You wrote: “a yes vote on 8 would be ratifying [I assume you mean "amending"] the State of California’s Constitution in a way that has never been done before, removing someones rights, however wrong or right you believe they are, it’s still taking something away.”
Doesn’t every change in a Constitution take something from some and give something to others? When the Cal Supremes changed the Constitution to make gay marriage legal, they took away from non-gays by diluting the “marriage” brand. It’s also true that a constitution, by its very nature, empowers a state to do things to individuals thereby taking from them.
In this sense, Prop 8 is just more of the same, reordering rights and obligations in a peaceful way — in this case giving back to the people a recognizable brand which the Cal Supreme Court wrongly took away with their ruling legalizing gay marriage.
Kurt, I read the link you provided. The statistics on gay men and AIDS date back to 1994. The state of AIDS in this country has changed dramatically in 14 years and those statistics no longer apply. Granted it’s true that male-male sexual contact is primary transmitter of HIV according to the CDC, it’s not exactly a given that gay men will contract it. Protease inhibitors such as AZT have made it possible to lower the viral load to the point where it limits the possibility of transmission, and engaging in safer sex practices further lowers the risk.
He also only focuses on the idea of a “gay gene” and even if his studies are accurate, it ignores the theories around birth order, and androgen levels during gestation that seem to have strong correlations. The research is by no means complete on that topic. Here’s a fascinating article on the subject in Psychology Today – http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20080420-000003.xml and one from WebMD – http://www.webmd.com/news/20000329/pointing-finger-androgen-cause-homosexuality
Anyway, we could fling studies at each other over and over again, and we’re never going to convince each other. You think it’s wrong to be gay, I think it’s wrong to impose your morality on people who don’t share it. I say what occurs between two consenting adults is their own business, you think the government should penalize those who don’t conform to the sexual mores of what I see as an obsolete bronze-age text.
At this point I don’t think there’s any point in me continuing in this conversation. But I’ve done you the courtesy of reading the evidence you provide. I hope you’ll read mine. I’m done. Have a good one!
Fairydogmother:
Please know that I wasn’t trying to say that every heterosexual out there is dissatisfied with their life. I know many, many straight people that are completely happy with their lives and comfortable in their sexuality. Not so surprisingly, the vast majority of them have no issue whatsoever with my sexuality (in which I am also very comfortable). What I was trying to say is that those who ARE dissatisfied, often men and women repressing their own sexual desires though not always, will use those of us who are open about who we are as objects of scorn, ridicule and violence (I’m not accusing anyone here of those things). If you would like an example, we just observed the 10th anniversary of Matthew Sheppard’s death. The only “flaunting” this young man did on the night he was beaten so severely he later died was to respond to the advances of his assailants. On a personal level, I have been called names, jabbed at and given dirty looks for hugging or giving a chaste kiss to my boyfriends on the street or in a public store. Things that do not promote behavior in anyone, but do honestly express my feelings. The same actions that are perfectly acceptable, and encouraged, in heterosexual couples. I fail to see how encouraging acceptance is “in your face”.
Kurt:
“When the Cal Supremes changed the Constitution to make gay marriage legal, they took away from non-gays by diluting the “marriage” brand.
First, the Supreme Court didn’t change the Constitution. They struck down a law and changed statutes in the family code. There is a difference. Second, I still fail to see how expanding the pool to whom a right applies dilutes the rights of those in the pool. The court decision does not in any way remove rights, privileges or responsibilities that married heterosexual couples have in the eyes of the law. It doesn’t make it more difficult for them to achieve said status. Neither does it force them in any way to consider instead having a spouse of the same sex. All it does is grant those rights, privileges and responsibilities to same-sex couples wishing to enter into that arrangement.
As for Dr. Satinover’s testimony (I didn’t yet read the full text, but did read what you posted), while he didn’t say anything patently untrue it is misleading:
There are those who claim that homosexuality has been proven to be caused by genetics, but that doesn’t mean that we all believe it has been proven. It is one theory that has been neither proved nor disproved as yet (5 years after his testimony).
It is impossible to validly argue the immutability of homosexuality with those who will not make a distinction between desire and action. The vast majority of those in the psychological field will tell you that acting on homosexual desires can be repressed. They will also tell you that even repressed, the desire is still their. Similarly the lack of desire for a member of the opposite sex can be overcome, and a person with homosexual desires can engage in hetero sex. The crux of the matter is the definition of homosexual. I define it as the desire, most of you seem to be defining it as the action upon the desire. We have different definitions of the term and will therefor come to different conclusions about the term.
There are consequences to homo sex beyond those that are caused by social disapproval and discrimination, just as there are to hetero sex. The real problems come in with possible unsafe practices (insufficient lubrication and/or protection) and promiscuity. Promiscuous and/or unsafe heterosexual face just as many consequences from their carnal practices as homosexuals. Far back in the comments someone mentioned an increased instance of anal cancer in homosexual males. There is also an increased instance of ovarian and uterine cancer in promiscuous females.
The fourth assertion is ridiculous. No sane person is advocating for a “society composed of same-sex couples raising children in family-like units.” We are not saying that everyone is or should be gay, just as we are saying that not everyone is or should be straight. What we ARE saying is that society will not be diminished by incorporating our loving families in with yours as equal and valid.
All:
I appreciate the civil way in which we have continued discourse. I’m wondering if it should continue or if we have discussed all relevant points, having already agreed to disagree…
Tim said: “I fail to see how encouraging acceptance is ‘in your face’.”
It depends a lot on the methods used and the type of emotion involved. The best way to enourage acceptance, in my opinion, is to be courteous and respectful of those who disagree with you. I’m not saying I have that down to a science myself. But it seems logical to me that those who are rude and confrontational are less likely to gain respect and understanding than those who are polite and reasonable.
For example, I am much more inclined to respect gays if they converse with me calmly than if they have a gay parade in my neighborhood (or even the largest city nearest my neighborhood). I feel that demonstrations tend to amplify negative emotions. I don’t think they are helpful in establishing rapport among community members who are on opposing sides of a given question.
Well, unless someone else has a pressing point to make, I think we’ve probably covered almost every angle multiple times. I suspect we can now agree to disagree.
Spondee –
I have not ever said that “gay is bad.” I have said it is dangerous, which it is. I have also said that homosexuality, if engaged in by all, would destroy the country. Your WebMD article agrees. The Psych Today article does not address the question.
I have also said that children need a mother and father of opposite sexes. Neither of the links you posted refute this assertion. And neither of these assertions is “obsolete” or “bronze-age.”
The links are thought-provoking and — if founded on good research — tend to support the idea that some homosexuals do not choose to be so. It’s hard to assess the reliability of the research without reading the original material. Even if valid and reliable, neither article claims to explain more than a fraction of the incidence of homosexuality in the overall population.
Regardless of the reasons why people end up in homosexual relationships, those relationships are not equivalent in social or biological terms to marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage fulfills important functions in society and needs — for the long-term good of society — a brand that is undiluted through association with other intimate relationships. It also merits legal privileges that encourage men and women to enter into (and remain in) a stable marital relationship.
You wrote, “I think it’s wrong to impose your morality on people who don’t share it. I say what occurs between two consenting adults is their own business, you think the government should penalize those who don’t conform to the sexual mores of what I see as an obsolete bronze-age text.”
In this debate, I have never attempted to impose my morality on anyone. You can do what you will with whom you will whenever you will, as long no one gets hurt and you respect my desire not to hear about it.
And no one is penalizing you for your choice of mates. We’re merely saying that the marriage brand means something considerably more than what you want it to mean and that society should reward those who live it for the unique contributions that they alone make to long-run welfare of society.
I bear you no ill will. However, I am fed up with the obnoxious in-your-face behavior of so many in the gay community who seek to impose their version of morality on me and my family in many ways and venues. If these individuals would stand down and behave themselves like civilized adults, I think you’d find far less friction with society as a whole.
When, for example, was the last time you saw a movie star or politician come “out of the closet” as a heterosexual? The fixation on ones “sexual identity” — and the seemingly insatiable desire to tell everyone about it — is pathological.
good comments, kurt. I agree with 99% of what you’ve said
If words still mean anything today then Taylor Marshall has an excellent point here on Credo at Culture11.
http://culture11.com/blogs/credo/2008/10/20/gay-marriage-and-the-word-matrimony/
Thanks. Yes, it is an excellent point. While a lesbian couple could claim intent to have one of them become a mother through artificial means, the union itself would not be matrimony because that union is incapable of naturally making either of them a mother.
I’m glad José’s story is providing serious food for thought. I’m seriously torn about how to vote on Prop 8 and my hesitation is holding up my absentee ballot, so I’m not here to try to convince anyone of my strong opinion one one side. I guess I’m a little bit José, yet jaded enough not to stand on a street corner. I know I’d be hassled, if not assaulted.
My original thinking is along the lines of the cookies and cake metaphor. It seemed simple enough to think if I personally define marriage differently, I cannot in good voting conscience vote “No”. However, the last thing I think of myself is a bigot, or unfair in wanting people to have rights, so I’ve been attempting to get information and question my own beliefs and conclusions.
I know gay couples who are living together in loving, long-term relationships and yet my personal, long-held definition of marriage didn’t seem to match what gay marriage when I saw this Proposition. Hang on though! I’m willing to challenge my own beliefs.
What was my belief? And why in the world do I think it needs to apply to anyone else??!! I was at a wedding in the 90s when it hit me that marriage is a sacrament and life-long promise, witnessed by the community. Modified as the years went by, I realized it also includes that it is also open to children if possible. Yes, I’m Catholic converted from questioning secular agnostic. From all the couples I’ve known I don’t see how to exclude gay people from even my definition, even though the practice of homosexuality usually excludes people from the sacraments of my specific Church at large. (there are some welcoming individual Catholic parishes, and this shapes my thinking.) I know faithful religious, Catholic, gay people who are committed couples and want to stay together. I know in general, however, what seems like a breach is the whole sacramental aspect.
What’s off about this legal battle is that the people who don’t seem to care if their unions are a sacrament are both many hetero and homosexual couples.
In the last few days, I became aware that California domestic partnerships guarantee many legal rights, but only recognized at the state level and that couples marrying want not only a ceremony and to be able to become or remain spouses but also to gain Federal rights, such as immigration sponsorships, etc, that heterosexual married couples have. But back to, well, but is it marriage?… If I don’t think it is, then I can’t vote that it is just to fix what may be seen as problems with the scope of how laws are applied.
Ok, so let’s say I, personally don’t think gay marriage is marriage because of my religious beliefs. I turn to how I vote on other issues where I struggle. In some cases, I don’t think getting government involved is a solution, whether I’m for or against the idea. In this case, that’s not an option. Or I think the law will hurt even if the letter of the law is something I support. This is a possibility with Prop 8. Is this a moral with José ? Would the passage of Prop 8 merely be divisive because the opponents of it would take it as such a slight even when it is not intended to be one? Would there be greater harm in that divisiveness? I wonder if so, if the ads for it are merely, “teachers have to teach” that gays can marry when it would be the case that they would in fact be able to do so.
Ok, another aspect of voting against it as I waffle is that I question whether a Constitutional Amendment is the right idea. That’s awfully permanent. And what I still haven’t sorted out is the relationship to Federal statutes. it all seems a mess. If anything, change the law and correct it for everyone: I think all couples should have a civil union when joined by a court of law and if married in a church then that should be called marriage.
If there is any “erosion” element is just including even more people into the not-quite-a-marriage situation that we already have.
As I write I guess I’m defining marriage as
1. 2 people with shared property, inheritance, and other legal rights
2. public affirmation of intent to be permanently committed to one other
3. becoming a joint partnership in raising youngin’s
I’m on the fence about redefining marriage from man and woman to same-sex. It seems so pompous to think that this state can redefine what is marriage. I think of people I know worldwide and it makes me think of how they already think of us in the US as thinking of ourselves as so self-important.
I’m all over the place on this. Blecchh. I’m tempted to leave this one blank.
← Previous Comments