Thursday, April 09, 2009

More Good News: New Hampshire

We talked last week about the "bathroom bill" in New Hampshire, where the New England shower-nuts were successfully able to frame gender-identity discrimination in terms of men going into women's bathrooms. At that time, the state House voted to keep discrimination legal by a fifteen-vote margin.

They thought again about it and brought it to a second vote -- this is cool.
Concord – By a single vote, the New Hampshire House today reversed itself and passed a bill that bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The proposal was dubbed the "bathroom bill" by its opponents.

The bill, House Bill 415, allows individuals to bring actions at the Human Rights Commission when they feel they have been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual identity, or the way they express it, such as with their clothing or makeup. Trans-gender rights bill passes House by one vote

The Democratic governor did not endorse the bill, and it is not known if he will sign it.

Skipping down, the good part...
Early in the debate, Speaker of the House Terie Norelli, D-Portsmouth, took the unusual step of leaving her podium and speaking in favor of the bill. She said she was disappointed in debate two weeks ago, and by “the muddying of the waters” on the issue.

“New Hampshire and the New Hampshire General Court has always stood against discrimination. Somewhere along the way, that message got lost on this bill,” she said. “We’re not asking you to open up bathrooms to sexual predators. We’re asking you to stand tall against discrimination.”

Exactly!

The first time, the House voted on the basis of stuff that wasn't in the bill. They had a big budget to get out and debate was cut short, and the legislators voted on a "bathroom bill" after hearing from some shower-nuts about how the new law would cause things like men lurking in ladies restrooms, predators, pedophiles, and perverts waving their festering penises around in women's showers, that sort of thing. Say it again: “We’re not asking you to open up bathrooms to sexual predators. We’re asking you to stand tall against discrimination.”

Congratulations to those even-tempered folks up there in that chilly sliver of a state (where I spent the summer of my twentieth year working highway construction) for taking a second look at this issue. It's one thing to con the gullible members of the public like our local Montgomery County shower-nuts did, stopping people in front of the Giant and asking them to sign "a petition to keep men out of ladies' bathrooms." It is another thing altogether, a terrible irresponsible thing, for elected representatives to vote on such an ignorant misconstrual of an important bill.
The bill adds the words “gender identity or expression” to the state’s anti-discrimination laws that protect people from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, age, and national origin.

Sponsor Rep. Ed Butler, D-Hart's Location, said his bill simply protects people whose gender is an issue from discrimination in housing and the workplace.

Opponents said it will open bathrooms to sexual predators and child molesters and wrongly penalize employers, schools and churches.

We've heard this all before. In our county the Citizens for Responsible Whatever were able to get almost 16,000 valid petition signatures for a referendum in a county of approximately five hundred fifty thousand registered voters by lying to people about our nondiscrimination bill in exactly this same way. It costs a lot of money to counter a vivid lie, and luckily we didn't have to mount a full public-education campaign here.

In New Hampshire, the legislature voted and then thought better of it, and voted again. They realized they had made a mistake and they corrected it. That is the way to do it.

41 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

andrea not anon
Just another reason why I am happy to say " President Barack Hussein Obama" . About some of the guests at the President's seder tonight-
"Most of them were on a campaign stop in Harrisburg, PA with then-senator Obama last year when the first night of Passover fell. According to the White House, Obama insisted on holding an impromptu seder, and this year invited those who were with him to celebrate together again." This is a man with whomI want to have a glass of Concord grape.

April 09, 2009 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Yay for New Hampshire!

(and Barack).

April 09, 2009 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I went to a seder last night, Andrea.

Remember to breathe through your mouth when you do the horseradish!

You're not the only one happy to say "President Barack Hussein Obama".

They love him over in Europe. After Hussein Obama apologized to the leaders there for saving their arses repeatedly over the last century, he asked them for some cooperation in a few matters of American interest.

They all said "no way, but thanks for coming"!

He's loved but not respected. They know he has so much invested in proving he can get their approval, that he won't dare object to anything they do.

To quote Jed Clampett, "Y'all come back now. Y'hear?"

April 09, 2009 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I think you might be getting soap bubbles in your eyes as you spin around the drain, barryo, or maybe you're just dizzy, but your summary of the G20 summit is way off base. You said the G20 leaders said "no way, but thanks for coming"!, but even Rupert Murdoch's New York Post got it right when it reported:

...Thursday's gathering was called in hopes of restoring faith in the global financial system -- and in one possible gauge of success, European and U.S. markets surged ahead as the outcome of the summit came into view.

The biggest headline figure was the new money for the International Monetary Fund, which helps out governments that run into financial trouble from the crisis, and other development organizations to send credit to countries that have seen it dry up.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who earlier had threatened earlier to walk out if unsatisfied with the outcome, also praised Obama for helping to create consensus and persuade China to agree to publish lists of tax havens.

"There were moments of tension," Sarkozy said. "Never would we have thought to get as big an agreement."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the measures "a very, very good, almost historic compromise" that will give the world "a clear financial markets architecture."

"For the first time we have a common approach to cleaning up banks around the world to restructuring of the world financial system. We have maintained our commitment to help the world's poorest," Brown said. "This is a collective action of people around the world working at their best."

The G-20 leaders also said that developing nations -- hard-hit and long complaining of marginalization -- would get a greater say in world economic affairs. They said they would renounce protectionism and pledged $250 billion in trade finance over the next two years -- a key measure to help struggling developing countries.

The leaders also agreed to new rules on linking executive pay to performance, Brown said.

Despite the announcement of a global supervisory body to flag problems, Sarkozy lost his bid for a global regulatory czar that could actual enforce regulations inside U.S. and other countries.

Obama said that the comprehensive deal was just the beginning, and the world's problems "are not going to be solved in one meeting, they're not going to be solved in two meetings."

G-20 leaders agreed to gather again to assess progress on their commitments at the sidelines of the annual U.N. summit in New York in September...


I hope you're laying off Granny's “rheumatiz medicine” these days.

April 09, 2009 1:04 PM  
Anonymous anon-zim said...

Today is Maundy Thursday, the day when Judeo-Christians worldwide remember the last seder of Jesus. Shortly afterward, he was arrested.

Here's some meditative verse. The author is Robert Zimmerman:

"When they came for Him in the garden, did they know?

When they came for Him in the garden, did they know?

Did they know He was the Son of God, did they know that He was Lord?

Did they hear when He told Peter, "Peter, put up your sword"?

When they came for Him in the garden, did they know?

When they came for Him in the garden, did they know?

When He spoke to them in the city, did they hear?

When He spoke to them in the city, did they hear?

Nicodemus came at night so he wouldn't be seen by men

Saying, "Master, tell me why a man must be born again."

When He spoke to them in the city, did they hear?

When He spoke to them in the city, did they hear?

When He healed the blind and crippled, did they see?

When He healed the blind and crippled, did they see?

When He said, "Pick up your bed and walk, why must you criticize?

Same thing My Father do, I can do likewise."

When He healed the blind and crippled, did they see?

When He healed the blind and crippled, did they see?

Did they speak out against Him, id they dare?

Did they speak out against Him, did they dare?

The multitude wanted to make Him king, put a crown upon His head

Why did He slip away to a quiet place instead?

Did they speak out against Him, did they dare?

Did they speak out against Him, did they dare?

When He rose from the dead, did they believe?

When He rose from the dead, did they believe?

He said, "All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth."

Did they know right then and there what that power was worth?

When He rose from the dead, did they believe?

When He rose from the dead, did they believe?"

April 09, 2009 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AS a non-believer, I find the post by Anon-Zim to be totally inappropriate, offensive, and isulting for this blog site. Many of the readers here do not subscribe to this poster's particular religious views which, if this were a dedicated Christian site appealing to Christian readers would be appropriate. No doubt Anon-Zim would be equally offended if someone were to post a "Paeon to the Sun God" or "A Prayer to Zookladuka" here. Find a religious blog site to tout your own personal religions beliefs, please.

April 09, 2009 1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you're a non-believer, you should overcome your fears. I'm not offended at all by people having different beliefs.

You didn't see to mind when Andrea discussed the Passover.

The value and place of religious belief in our society is a regular topic of discussion on this blog.

April 09, 2009 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Yay for New Hampshire!

I read the article Jim linked to in the Union-Leader (Manchester NH's newspaper). The bill needs to be approved by the state Senate and signed by the governor, who has made a statment that seems to imply that trans people are already covered by the state non-discrimination law.

Apparently, in the first vote, the Republican radicals in the house delayed the vote so late in the day that many legislators had to leave and could not vote (NH house members only make $100 per year, so one would assume they have day jobs).

In the second vote, that same radical fringe proposed dozens of amendments to the bill (which were defeated all by a 50 vote margin), calling for a roll-call on each vote, apparently in an attempt again to delay the vote until supporters could no longer stay, or until the leadership abandoned the bill, under the pressure of having to approve a budget for the state. Truly infamous obstructionist tactics.

In the comments section on the Union-Leader article, some commenters opposed to the bill expressed disgust about transgender people (could you find a better example of transphobia?), but almost all of them talked about bathrooms. It's like the Jamaican, Russian and Ugandan anti-gay forces bringing in America's tried and true accusation of recruiting children (in Uganda, they even have an "ex-gay" declaring publicly that he was employed by the International Gay groups to recruit children.

The New Hampshire legislators who voted for this law are among the most courageous politicians we have in this country. The forces against lgbt equality are unscrupulous (as they have been for all our history) and well-funded (and often anonymous-hee hee).

Yay for New Hampshire!

rrjr

April 09, 2009 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Thank for demonstrating your lack of comprehension, anon-zim. Andrea mentioned a seder tonight at the White House that will involve some of the same people who met Obama during his campaign last year. She did not offer "meditative verse" on her faith. I don't think any regular Vigilance readers are surprised that you fail to see the difference.

I'm with non-believer and urge you to go find a religious blog where commenters might care to discuss faiths. I found it easy enough to read your intro, which resulted in my decision to skip the musings on the ancient myths you subscribe to out of disinterest, not fear.

The discussions about religion on Vigilance have mostly centered around the need to enforce the wall of separation between church and state. Most TTF supporters do not want religion to influence our school system here in Montgomery County. We prefer schools teach the facts.

April 09, 2009 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The discussions about religion on Vigilance have mostly centered around the need to enforce the wall of separation between church and state."

Well, TTF is not a state. The commenter who is offended shows the truth: TTF doesn't want to seperate church from state, they want to eliminate church from society.

There is no discussion, btw, without opposition. If the right hand doesn't hit the left, that's not clapping.

"Most TTF supporters do not want religion to influence our school system here in Montgomery County."

Religion affects everything. If students don't know anything about it, they aren't prepared to live in our society, much less understand the rest of the globe.

"We prefer schools teach the facts."

As long as they butress the TTF worldview. Inconvenient facts are conveniently opposed by TTF.

April 09, 2009 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Owl Eyes said...

"I found it easy enough to read your intro, which resulted in my decision to skip the musings on the ancient myths you subscribe to out of disinterest"

My personal opinion is that Bea is not telling the truth here.

April 09, 2009 3:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, bad anonymous, you just keep telling yourself you're that important! I also skip your off-topic crap as soon as I realize what it is.

April 09, 2009 5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I also skip your off-topic crap as soon as I realize what it is."

I think this just about says it all about our ditzo comment deleter.

Read it fast before Priya zaps it!

April 09, 2009 5:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" Just what is your purpose for posting on this Vigilance site? Oh...I forgot - it is to lead us to "the truth" which only you possess. How generous of you to share your leadership in "saving us".
You are so off-base: "The commenter who is offended shows the truth: TTF doesn't want to seperate church from state, they want to eliminate church from society." This is not TTF's position - but it does precisely reflect mine.

April 09, 2009 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea brought the topic of Obama celebrating seder

what's wrong with someone talking about Jesus doing it?

April 09, 2009 5:41 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Andrea mentioned a seder that occurred this year and last. barryo also mentioned a seder held in the past, but then went on to post lines of "meditative verse" about her faith that doesn't even mention a seder.

Have you noticed that not one comment has been about the content of the verse? Go ahead, post what you want, you'll get the same type of replies you've been getting, which has been a complete lack of interest in the content.

If you want to discuss your faith or Jesus, you might fit in better at one of these Jesus blogs listed by WordPress.com.

April 10, 2009 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.

The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing.

They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:

-- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.

-- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

-- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

"It really is all about religious liberty for us," said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony.

"The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles."

Sometimes, organizations that don't wish to serve gays give in rather than go to court.

The online dating site eHarmony agreed to provide gay and lesbian matchmaking services to settle a complaint by a gay New Jersey man accusing it of discrimination.

The new site, CompatiblePartners.net, started Tuesday.

The site eHarmony, founded by evangelical psychologist Neil Clark Warren, does not provide a same-sex option.

Warren said his research into successful relationships did not include same-sex couples.

Company attorneys said that it settled because of the unpredictable nature of litigation and that New Jersey's attorney general did not find that eHarmony had violated the state's anti-discrimination law.

"People seem to say that if you enter the world of commerce, you lose all your First Amendment rights" to free exercise of religion, said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization that has represented several businesses.

"They . . . have become nothing more than vending machines, and the government can dictate the conditions under which they dispense their goods and services."

Even when groups opposing homosexuality have prevailed in court, they have gone on to face other setbacks.

The Boy Scouts of America won a lawsuit in 2000 because it did not allow openly gay Scouts or Scout leaders.

Since then, some private charities have refused to support the Scouts, and some local governments have yanked free use of facilities and other benefits.

In Philadelphia, the city is demanding that the Scouts pay $200,000 in annual rent for a building that they had been using rent-free.

The dispute is in court.

April 10, 2009 8:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ANN COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html

April 10, 2009 8:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Friday. He healed the lame and fed the hungry but he also took a few folks in high places and shined a light in their bed.

My God, they killed him.

Here's some meditative verse. The author is J.R. Cash:

"From the hands it came down
From the side it came down
From the feet it came down
And ran to the ground
Between heaven and hell
A teardrop fell
In the deep crimson dew
The tree of life grew

And the blood gave life
To the branches of the tree
And the blood was the price
That set the captives free
And the numbers that came
Through the fire and the flood
Clung to the tree
And were redeemed by the blood

From the tree streamed a light
That started the fight
'Round the tree grew a vine
On whose fruit I could dine
My old friend Lucifer came
Fought to keep me in chains
But I saw through the tricks
Of six-sixty-six

And the blood gave life
To the branches of the tree
And the blood was the price
That set the captives free
And the numbers that came
Through the fire and the flood
Clung to the tree
And were redeemed by the blood

From his hands it came down
From his side it came down
From his feet it came down
And ran to the ground
And a small inner voice Said
"You do have a choice."
The vine engrafted me
And I clung to the tree"

April 10, 2009 8:08 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Don't forget this part of Ms. Salmon's piece:

"Some scholars also point to Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption over a ban on interracial dating and marriage among students, even though it claimed that those beliefs were religiously grounded. Some legal analysts suggest that religious groups that do not support gay rights might lose their tax exemptions because of their politically unpopular views."

BJU used Christianity to claim the right to discriminate against African Americans. I don't recall them objecting to African Americans paying taxes to cover their tax exempt status, do you?

Is the only reason discrimination is wrong "political correctness?" I don't think so. The way I see it, there are certain self-evident truths that tell us discrimination is wrong, like this one, for example: all men are created equal.

The courts have also not only limited religious groups rights, but have given them rights too.

Pharmacists Win Washington Victory

Ruling favors Morrison pharmacist

And closer to home, MCPS is funded by all residents of the county and has been ordered by the court to allow religious based groups like PFOX and the Good News Club to use the schools to contact families via backpack fliers.

April 10, 2009 8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with Bob Jones is that there is no biblical justification for racial discrimination.

Discrimination based on desires and actions, however, is not just biblically based, it is practiced by all members of society, both secular and faithful. Gay advocates are simply playing a rhetorical game.

Most of the time, this is no big deal. Serving gays a pizza or letting them into a movie violates no one's conscience.

Other times, however, it is. The eHarmony case is an example. If someone believes homosexuality is wrong, we should they be forced to facilitate it?

Truth is, gays don't need discrimination laws in our society. They do just fine.

April 10, 2009 9:26 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon asked:

“Other times, however, it is. The eHarmony case is an example. If someone believes homosexuality is wrong, we should they be forced to facilitate it?”

It has to do with fairness and reciprocity Anon. There are plenty of religious beliefs and behaviors that a number of folks find objectionable. Yet we have codified into our laws that we can not discriminate against someone because they believe they are protected by Holy Underwear, wear certain items of “religious” clothing, or believe they are part of a select group of people who will be taken up in the Rapture. eHarmony can’t discriminate against those people either.

Anon said:

“The problem with Bob Jones is that there is no biblical justification for racial discrimination.”

Indeed Anon, I agree. Bob Jones doesn’t, but I do. The bigger problem though is that depending on which bible you use and whose interpretation you believe in, you’ll find all sorts of arbitrary justifications for just about anything you like. In a society that cherishes “Freedom of Religion,” we must necessarily find a common space where commerce and normal daily interaction can occur between all these disparate religious and non-religious groups in a fair and unfettered fashion. For that to occur, in that space, so as to infringe on the fewest possible people and their sacred beliefs, we must have some degree of “Freedom FROM Religion.”

That way the Jews don’t have to put up with Christians telling them Christ is their one and only savior, Christians don’t have to put up with Muslims telling them they have to pray five times a day, non-religious folks don’t have to worry about Jehovah’s Witnesses telling them they can’t have a blood transfusion, and on and on. A select group of self-righteous Christians should be allowed to dictate who marries whom.

Religious people in our society don’t need more protection. There are numerous churches, synagogues, temples and mosques in every state of the union, and they get hefty tax breaks. They do just fine.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 10, 2009 10:09 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

A typo correction:

"A select group of self-righteous Christians should NOT be allowed to dictate who marries whom."

Sorry for the confusion.

Cynthia

April 10, 2009 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 10, 2009 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

select group?

all major religions consider marriage to the union of a man and a woman

since marriage was a religious creation, why can't religion say who can be married?

and, if you're not religious, why do you want to be married?

we already have you covered with civil union laws

isn't the intent here an attempt to use government authority to attack religious belief?

April 10, 2009 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope. I think someone's ideas of entitlement are getting savaged. Not the fault of anyone except the person who has feelings of entitlement.

April 10, 2009 6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Religious people in our society don’t need more protection."

That's true. They're protected by the bill of rights. The free exercise of religion is not to be prohibited.

The bill of rights is what needs protection from lunatci fringe gay advocacy groups.

April 10, 2009 7:17 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Cynthia showed anonymous where it's at.

Honey, just admit when you've been bested, and move one. Trying to remediate a lost position just makes you look....

Well, anyway, you will never win an argument with people who don't buy your religion, by claiming that it is the majority religion. That is just so solidly un-American, it cries out for correction.

Where in America do you come from? Not the America I live in.

April 10, 2009 9:11 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon asked:

“select group?
all major religions consider marriage to the union of a man and a woman”

I used the phrase “select group” because none of the Muslim, Jewish, B’hai, or Zoroastrian friends or people that I have met personally have ever expressed to me that they think gays should not be allowed to marry. I suspect there are people of those faiths that don’t think gays shouldn’t marry, but so far the only ones that I have run into in person or on the net have all called themselves “Christian.” I also know other Christians that think gays SHOULD be allowed to marry. (Go to www.Jesus.com for example.) I didn’t want to paint all of those folks with the same brush, (and I know they wouldn’t want to be painted with that brush either) so I said a “select group.”

Anon also asked:

“since marriage was a religious creation, why can't religion say who can be married?”

And later pointed out:

“The free exercise of religion is not to be prohibited.”

Well, I’m not sure if marriage was a religious creation or not – I wasn’t there, and I don’t remember reading about Adam and Eve’s wedding. But you bring up a good point.

I have often wondered why someone just hasn’t started the Church of the Holy Homosexual.

New churches get started all the time. A famous relatively recent example would be Scientology.
It seems L. Ron Hubbard realized he could make a lot more money writing religious books than science fiction, and went off to start his own religion. Interestingly, Scientologists have attracted the unwanted attention of an internet-based protest group which refers to itself as “Anonymous,” but I digress.

In the 19th century a new religion was started by a guy with the improbable name of Joseph Smith. He is now revered by some as a prophet on the same order as Jesus and Mohammad. Somehow though, folks just haven’t warmed up to using just his first name – when you mention “Joe,” it just doesn’t conjure up the same reverence as “Jesus.” But we’ll get back to Joe later.

Let’s imagine, for a moment, that I become a High Priestess in the Church of the Holy Homosexual. We could define our religion and select our religious doctrine (or write a new one) that specifically promotes the establishment of homosexual marriages. It seems then that we would have a case for legally allowing gay marriages, because to NOT do so would be a matter of RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. Rather than the Civil Rights battle that it (gay marriage) is currently framed as.

This opens up a whole new can of worms, doesn’t it? How do you say what Religion A does is perfectly acceptable and legal, but Religion B is not without potentially stepping on some of the religious freedoms of Religion A? Will Mormons have to stop baptizing everyone after they are dead? Doesn’t that infringe on Mormon religious freedom? But what about Jews? Should they have to be subjected to post-mortem baptisms by Mormons? Is that an infringement on Jewish religious freedom? What religious practices in which religions will we have to outlaw to make them all equal? Will there be much of a religion left after that? I’m quite sure religious folks REALLY don’t want to fight that battle.

Anon also asked:

“and, if you're not religious, why do you want to be married?”

A whole number of “little” reasons Anon. Like knowing the person I’m with has made a formal, public commitment to love, honor and cherish me in sickness and in health until death do us part. So that if his child falls ill at school, I would be allowed to go and pick her up. So that if one of us looses our job, the other one can put our spouse on the company-sponsored health insurance plan. (I realize that usually these issues are brought up by gay folks wanting to get married, but given my medical history, despite the fact that I am anatomically, hormonally, and legally female, right down to my birth certificate, challenges to trans marriages have come up and (surprise!) the trans person usually ends up on the losing side.)

Anon asserted:

“we already have you covered with civil union laws”

Actually we don’t Anon. Maryland doesn’t have Civil Unions. There are some recent provisions added to the code (thanks to Equality Maryland and its supporters) that allow visitation for a sick loved one in the hospital, making funeral arrangements for each other, and some similar helpful items, but it’s no Civil Union, much less a Marriage.

Anon asked:

“isn't the intent here an attempt to use government authority to attack religious belief?”


The last time of note that I can think of where government authority was used to “attack” religious belief was in the late 1880s and 1890s. It started off with the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which prohibited and punished the act of polygamy with fines and imprisonment. Old Joe, (Joseph Smith that is, whom I mentioned earlier) at some point began promoting polygamy as part of his religion. It became quite popular with a lot of the men in the church, and apparently at least some of the women. It was NOT very popular with the US government.

The US government was about to come in and dismantle the Mormon Church and seize it assests; fortunately, in the nick of time, Church President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation from Jesus (Christ – I mentioned him earlier too). In it, Woodruff declares:

“There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”

A few years later, Utah became a state, after agreeing to specifically disallow polygamy in the state constitution. I’ve always found it amazing how Woodruff had this revelation at JUST the right time… the other interesting thing is that this revelation came to the *Church President* at the time. Do you think it would have had nearly such a great effect on church history if say, Millie Dunwald, a housewife with six kids had the revelation? I doubt it. And what if the revelation came from Mohammad rather than Jesus? Gee, how history might have been different. I guess Jesus really knows when he’s needed.

I don’t think the government has gotten nearly so involved in church matters since then. I’m sure you’ll point out the specific instances if I’m wrong though.

We’ve had laws for years that require equal treatment of men and women in hiring practices, but that hasn’t gotten the government to even consider overturning the Catholic Church’s policy of only having male priests.

If the government were to FORCE a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple, I would say THAT would be an attack on his (or even the Church’s) belief system. I doubt the US government wants to take that battle on, and that is not what gay marriage advocates are trying to achieve – there are plenty of ministers in a wide variety of Churches willing to perform gay marriages. Churches themselves can determine if they want to allow them to be performed within their own particular doctrine and ceremonies. There are plenty of non-religious officials that can perform marriages as well.

If the US government allows gay couples to marry though, that is NOT an attack on anyone’s religious beliefs, any more than my eating a ham sandwich is an attack on certain Muslim or Jewish beliefs. There may be plenty of Muslims and Jews that condemn me for eating the ham sandwich, and some my try to convert me, and others I’m sure would not want to be around such a sinner as myself. I know that in some cases, any tableware, pots or pans which were used in preparing my abominable porcine fare would not be later used by those folks in preparing their own food. That doesn’t mean I’m attacking their religion though, I’m just having a ham sandwich. They may be OFFENDED by my ham sandwich (or me eating it), but I’m not “attacking” their religion. The US government can’t protect religious people from getting offended – it can protect them in hiring practices though.

(For the record, if I were living with someone with strict dietary restrictions like that, I would go out of my way to make sure that if I did want to consume pork products, I would do so in the least obtrusive and most respectful way possible – which probably at least means getting separate cooking and eating ware.)

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

Hmmm. I’m kind of hungry. I think I still have some ham left in the bottom of the fridge. Do you have any Grey Poupon?

April 10, 2009 11:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If the government were to FORCE a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple, I would say THAT would be an attack on his (or even the Church’s) belief system."

So, if an evangelical Christian who runs an online match-making site being attacked if he is forced to match-make homosexuals?

btw, I think your religion argument is worth pursuing. Just say homosexual "marriage" is a religious belief and use your constitutional rights. Then we won't need all these gay discrimination laws and everyone can follow their own conscience.

April 11, 2009 9:52 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon asked:

“So, if an evangelical Christian who runs an online match-making site being attacked if he is forced to match-make homosexuals?”

No. The online site brings him out of the church and into the realm of public commerce. A place where we have all sorts of anti-discrimination laws EVERYONE has to obey. In many places (but not all) you already have laws that protect people from discriminating against them for their sexual orientation. The Evangelical Christian shouldn’t have the right to discriminate against a gay person walking in and buying a book from his Christian bookstore either.

If the Evangelical Christian had set up a bulletin board in the church’s entryway for *only church members* to use as a matching site, then he’d have an argument for keeping anyone he want off of it. But he did not. He set up a website available in most parts of the world, where anyone with access to a PC can get to it. He can not discriminate against anyone using his services because of their religion, race, ethnicity, or other characteristic either. Someone selling halal meats ( www.myhalalmeat.com ) for example can’t forbid Jewish folks from buying their Turkish style pizza. (By the way, they’re having a great special on Baklava!)

Note that the Evangelical Christian has not been forced to marry any of the gay matches that have been made.

Anon stated:

“btw, I think your religion argument is worth pursuing. Just say homosexual "marriage" is a religious belief and use your constitutional rights.”

I’ll keep that in mind Anon. I’ll have to figure out what to wear if I’m going to be a High Priestess. I imagine it will be something with a lot of white, form fitting, and very pretty… maybe with some white feathers. Although I think I’ll leave the Church of the Holy Homosexual to the gay folks to run. Maybe I’ll open up the Church of the Holy Transsexual. Hmmm… I need a name with more alliteration.

And then Anon wrote:

“Then we won't need all these gay discrimination laws and everyone can follow their own conscience.”

Treating everyone equally goes against your conscience Anon? It sounds like if gay was part of their religion you would treat them equally, as part of their constitutional rights. But because it’s NOT part of their religion you should be free to discriminate against them? Huh? Where is the logic in that? Does your conscience only allow non-discrimination for religious groups?

Have a nice day.

Cynthia

April 11, 2009 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I believe wholly that God made me gay and loves that aspect of my life. It is part of my religion.

April 11, 2009 12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey Svelte and Robert

I think there already is a gay church

Metropolitan Community Churches apparently considers "coming out" to be a sacrament

maybe romping in a fountain with tranvestites is their "baptism"

April 11, 2009 1:44 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon suggested:

“maybe romping in a fountain with tranvestites (sic) is their "baptism"

Oh come on Anon. For such an important ritual we would use nothing but the absolute BEST Drag Queens. Even you should have known that!

Evil Cyn

;)

April 11, 2009 7:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God did not make you gay, Robert. You chose that path. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light. Turn back,follow Him and you will have peace in your heart.

April 13, 2009 12:38 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I heard God doesn't make mistakes. Your decision to believe gays need to live in the closet and pretend to be something they are not, however, is a mistake.

TTF exists to keep people like you out of our school system because we prefer MCPS teach the facts, not ancient myths/religious beliefs.

Facts like these:

American Medical Association
"Our AMA... opposes, the use of "reparative" or "conversion" therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation."

American Psychiatric Association
In 1997 APA produced a fact sheet on homosexual and bisexual issues, which states that “there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of “reparative therapy” as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation.”

American Counseling Association
"Conversion therapy assumes that a person who has same-sex attractions and behaviors is mentally disordered and that this belief contradicts positions held by the American Counseling Association and other mental health and biomedical professional organizations."

American Academy of Pediatrics
“Some adolescents are uncertain about their sexual orientation; for them, a ‘counseling or psychotherapeuticinitiative’ aimed at clarification might be useful. Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation."

American Psychological Association
“The American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentallyill due to their sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, and mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about sexual orientation.”

National Association of Social Workers
"Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful…social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. “

Joint Statement
“Reparative therapy… is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions… [The groups who have signed on to this document] have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a ‘cure’.”

April 13, 2009 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for the opinions, Bea

when will you post the facts?

April 13, 2009 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Romping in a fountain with transvestites?

Best birthday I ever had.

You have a long memory.

April 13, 2009 11:56 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

It is a FACT that each of those medical and mental health organizations have issued the statements posted. Go ahead and find and post statements of differing opinions issued by other medical and mental health organizations.

April 13, 2009 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, OK

it's a fact that they have an opinion

thanks, again

April 13, 2009 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

In fact, NARTH, PFOX, and Exodus International have opinions too. CRW types support those opinions. Why don't you tell us about those?

April 13, 2009 5:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home