Posts Tagged ‘gay marriage’

Blacks and Women should Relinquish their Right to Vote

Thursday, July 2nd, 2009

That’s my appeal to “traditional values.”

In this morning’s Washington Examiner, Jonetta Rose Barras complains that the DC Superior Court ruling by Judge Judith Retchen against a referendum to overturn the mandate for DC to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other states is one of two “dual downers for traditional values.” The other is the push for legalization of Marijuana for medical treatment.

Barras blames the lack of voting representation as a prime culprit in allowing such violations of “traditional values” to occur unhindered. It’s not clear how Barras defines “traditional values,” but anyone claiming that the medicinal use of marijuana and the acceptance of same-sex marriage violates traditional values either lacks or ignores basic knowledge of the history of marijuana and the accepted “traditional” forms of marriage in the states.

“Make the most you can of the Indian hemp seed. Sow it everywhere.” Said Columbian drug cartel leader Edward Gonzalez. No, wait, it was George Washington who said it. Prior to 1900, marijuana wasn’t even regulated in the U.S., let alone criminalized. It’s been well-documented that Thomas Jefferson cultivated hemp: “Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country.” Even Lincoln and Carter had very strong opinions about it:

“Prohibition… goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded” -Abraham Lincoln

“Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marihuana in private for personal use… Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marihuana.” – Jimmy Carter1

It wasn’t until the 1930s that regulation had become nationalized.2 Should we infer, then, that Barras thinks that tradition prior to the 1930s doesn’t count? What exactly is a “traditional value” when referring to marijuana? If the arguments put forth regard health and welfare, then why aren’t those arguments applied across the board, to alcohol and tobacco, and why limit the scope to the past 80 years? If the arguments are religious, then we encounter another handful of problems.

First, the First Amendment prohibits such blatant violation of constitutional separation of church and state. Second, what’s the bible (assuming it’s the Judeo-Christian religion to which Barras and others appeal) got to say about marijuana? “Jesus inhaled, and God saw that it was good.” Oh, wait, the bible really didn’t talk all that much about drug prohibitions. As a matter of fact, didn’t the bible say something to effect of, “Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you,”" in Genesis 1:29? Oh, but that doesn’t count. Obviously. We’re not interpreting it to mean that. Jesus came along and changed all that. Nope, not buying the religious argument.

The “traditional values” of which Barras and others speak, regarding marijuana, are embodied in state and federal laws spanning all of 80 years. On this eve of the remembrance of our independence from imperial Britain’s tight grasp, perhaps we should do some simple math. Take 233 years of independence (plus more years, depending on how you like to define “tradition”), and subtract 80 years of progressively militant marijuana prohibition, and you get 153 years of non-prohibition. Are we just ignoring all of that tradition? It seems so. What’s the “value” in that? This is why we don’t appeal to tradition.

This nation had nearly 90 years of condoned slavery (plus all the years prior to independence), over 90 years of blacks not being able to vote, and, incredibly, embarrassingly, disgustingly, it took 144 years since our independence to give women the right to vote. It took 191 years for us to allow blacks to marry whites (and whites to marry blacks). Let’s do the math here and kill the double standards. If you want to appeal to traditional values, Ms. Barras, relinquish your right to vote, and advocate that women and minorities do the same.

The appeal to tradition is not just a formal logical fallacy, it’s also the method by which manipulative people create justification for their own actions while condemning actions they dislike. It’s also a devious double standard which should appeal to no rational person who appreciates our progress, especially regarding civil rights.

  1. Quotes from On Role Models and their Bongs [<]
  2. THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION [<]

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Government, Law, Morality, Religion | 1 Comment »

How Men will be Hurt by Gay Marriage

Wednesday, July 1st, 2009

National support for state-sanctioned same-sex marriage has slipped recently. Thank God.

Everyone knows that God hates gays, as is evidenced in the Bible in numerous places, including Leviticus, where God kicked out those in Canaan who accepted gays, and imported people from Israel to replace them. But besides jumping to succumb to God’s mighty wrath, what’s really the harm in a nation adopting gay marriage? Who gets hurt?

Ultimately, men do. That’s the probingly deep offering of Hashva Nyetovich, an ex-Soviet scholar who teaches at Israel’s Bar-Non University while serving as a senior fellow at the Shackle Center in Jerusalem. She’s also the author of an excellent new book, Created Similarly: How the Bible Broke the Back Mountain. I’m proud to publish her reflections on the question. Keep in mind that if you want to disagree with this analysis, you’ll have to explain why the historical parallel doesn’t apply:

I have studied ancient civilizations for many years, so I know a thing or two about drawing parallels between ancient cultures and our own, including the vilifications they perpetuated that we’re just on the verge of adopting. Regarding same-sex marriage, the writers of ancient Greece have much to teach us.

I have to conclude, after extensively reading Greek poetry, were I a man, I would be concerned by the tidal waves of legislation now threatening to drown this proud nation.

What really is the point in the gay and lesbian movement other than to have our society be forced to fully accept homoeroticism? What would that day look like?

Let’s take a look in our crystal ball at a future that is not too distant. Jessica, a teenager, has bffs who date girls and bffs who date boys. On TV, in magazines, Jessica sees depictions of women in love with women and of women in love with men. Jessica admires the picture in her principal’s office of the principal and her wife on their honeymoon. In this day, no one uses the word “homosexual” anymore, in just the same way that today no one uses the word “negro” — it’s so laden with the baggage of yesteryear’s bigotry. In fact, in this day, no one makes a big deal about sexual orientation at all. Jessica knows that when she seeks intimacy she is free to choose a red-head, a blonde, a Latina, a Phillipino, a girl, a guy; it’s all cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day.

But reading her history books about the 20th century, Jessica is shocked to discover that the percentage of women who were sexually interested in other women stood only in the single digits. She is shocked because everyone she knows engages in this regularly.

Why do I say everyone?

Because of what was written by the most prolific woman writer of ancient Greece. Some people are indeed homoerotic by nature. But others, as Aristotle noted, develop this as an acquired passion. Homoeroticism is, to a large degree, socially constructed. It turns out that where homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it flourishes — so much so, that one writer noted that the emperor Claudius exhibited an unusual trait: he was sexually interested in women alone!

Women, we learn from ancient Greece, will enjoy sex with other women, if there is no social censure. Now, all of this should be fine for us as well — after all, we should let free choice and tolerance reign.

The real problems begin, however, when we read what these writers had to say about marriage. Consider this piece from the fifth century BCE poet Sappho (Sappho to Her Girlfriends), in which the poet addresses herself to her hetaerae girlfriends:

This is my fair girl-garden: sweet they grow —
Rose, violet, asphodel and lily’s snow;
And which the sweetest is, I do not know;
For rosy arms and starry eyes are there.
Honey-sweet voices and cheeks passing fair.
And these shall men, I ween, remember long;
For these shall bloom for ever in my song.1

The social history behind this piece is clear: once they’ve experienced sex with other women, Sappho implies, women are unsatisfied with what their men provide them.

And so now we come back to the idyllic day of free choice and tolerance envisioned by the gay and lesbian movement. It turns out that that day has winners and losers. The winners — big time — are lesbian women. Despite historical records lacking note of widespread lesbianism, major factors suggest that lesbianism was just as prominent as male homosexuality: lesbianism was generally not considered a “problem” until the 1900s; the vast majority of ancient writers were men; women in ancient Greece and other lands were often sequestered with each other; and women are often depicted in art as sharing one another’s pleasure.

The losers from all this will be the vast majority of men. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow’s men will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable women without resorting to threats and violence. As men will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.

As Shakespeare noted, the past is prologue. The push to legalize same-sex marriage — to grant full social sanction to the homoerotic bond — is a major step in an experiment of social engineering. We might wind up ourselves one day penning the observations of writers like Sappho, and impotent to turn back the clock. It is said that all opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in religious dogma, which has no place in our legal discourse.

But there is a utilitarian argument as well: full social sanction for the homoerotic bond is opposed not for God’s sake, but for the sake of tomorrow’s men. For what will the men do once all the pussy’s gone?

Unconvinced?2

  1. Sappho to Her Girlfriends, translated by Arthur S. Way [<]
  2. The above is satire, and includes full quotes and paraphrasing from BeliefNet’s extremely bigoted, biased, sexist article trying to appeal to women to oppose gay marriage, for their sake. It’s a bunch of hogwash, and I hope the women know it. [<]

Tags: , ,
Posted in Law, Morality, Religion, Satire, Sexuality | 15 Comments »

Sanford and Ensign Should be Put to Death

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

According to “God’s Law.”

During Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s teary apology to his state, his family, his mistress, and others, he repeatedly made reference to “God’s Law.” In this case, he craftily manipulated the definition to be about self-control rather than an actual serious punishment.

But I’m here because if you were to look at God’s laws, in every instance it is designed to protect people from themselves. I think that that is the bottom line of God’s law. It is not a moral, rigid list of do’s and don’ts just for the heck of do’s and dont’s, it is indeed to protect us from ourselves. And the biggest self of self is indeed self. If sin is in fact grounded in this notion of what is it that I want, as opposed to somebody else.1

I wonder which of God’s laws Sanford was referencing here. Could it be one of the Ten Commandments? Could it be, depending on your denominational choice, Exodus 20:14? “You shall not commit adultery.” Know what’s excruciatingly difficult to find on Judeo-Christian websites? The prescribed consequences for violating “God’s Law.”

So addicted to the testament of the commandments are these hypocritical politicians that they’re willing to violate the First Amendment by signing bills to put them on display at public buildings, as Mark Sanford signed last year. But despite all the devotion to those laws, they ignore God’s prescribed consequences. Sanford says they’re designed to protect people from themselves, but I fear that Sanford must have missed that bible study lesson.

According to God’s law, the law that Sanford adopts so openly, Sanford should be put to death. So says Leviticus 20:10:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Or, is that open to interpretation? How dare we, as a society, as the governed, allow men like Sanford and Ensign, another hypocritical adulterer, to openly condemn homosexuality and other behavior they deem immoral based on God’s law if, when they are confronted with violations of that very same set of laws, we give them a round of applause?

Sanford, you want to display the Ten Commandments on public grounds? Fine. We’ll compromise. You can do that if, on those very same public grounds, you stand there, unprotected, surrounded by stones, allowing the public to choose whether you’re subject to God’s Law as you subject others to your interpretation of it.

—

Mark Sanford:2

-Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
-Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
-No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
-Affirmative action in state contracts, but not colleges. (Nov 2002)
-Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
-Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
-Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
-Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
-More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
-Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
-Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)

John Ensign:

-Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
-Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
-Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
-Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
-Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
-Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
-Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
-Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
-Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
-Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
-Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
-Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
-Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
-Voted YES on ending the set-aside of 10% of highway funds for minorities. (Apr 1998)
-Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
-Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
-Rated 11% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
-Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
-Voted NO on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
-Voted NO on allowing Habeus Corpus appeals in capital cases. (Mar 1996)
-Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
-Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
-More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
-More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
-Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
-Permanent crime database for volunteers with kids. (Jul 2008)
-Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)
-Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

In 1998, after President Bill Clinton admitted to having committed adultery with Monica Lewinsky, Ensign called on him to resign, saying, “He has no credibility left.”

In 2004, Ensign spoke on the Senate floor in favor of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have barred states from recognizing same-sex marriage. Ensign said:

Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation.

Ensign considers himself pro-life and both the National Right to Life Committee and NARAL Pro-Choice America identify him as having a pro-life voting record.

Ensign authored the Child Custody Protection Act in 2003 that prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.3

—

Note: I do not follow God’s law. Therefore, I do not think Sanford and Ensign should be put to death. I am not advocating in this article that they should be, and I’m not suggesting that anyone go about making it happen (unless Sanford and Ensign are volunteering to manifest God’s will). As a matter of fact, I don’t think anyone should be put to death. I am merely trying to hold these men accountable for not only their actions, but also their stance with regard to their application of their set of beliefs upon the makings and enforcement of law in their position as representatives of the people.

  1. Transcript excerpt from WIS10. [<]
  2. From On the Issues [<]
  3. Wikipedia [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Government, Morality, Religion, Sexuality | 4 Comments »

Gays are undermining small businesses

Saturday, May 16th, 2009

Does Michael Steele like slavery? How about apartheid? Maybe he would prefer to do away with the Civil Rights Act?

The Huffington Post reports that Mr Steele is now pitching the concept that gays will cost small business more money because of the extra costs in giving gay employees the spousal benefits of other straight employees. This concept Mr Steele is pitching is patently absurd because of the implications it conveys.

First, I am forced to conclude that small businesses in America are hiring gay employees over straight employees because the business owners would not have to provide spousal benefits, thereby saving money.  This is absurd because most employees are straight, not gay. The increase in cost can only occur if gays are starting to outnumber straights.

Second, to subscribe to Mr Steele’s flawed thinking, the conservative Christians of the Republican Party must recognize and agree that the lower marriage rate of straight America is not a problem, so much so that it isn’t even happening. This defies the statistics that show an increasing number of Americans are choosing not to marry their own partners and are more often having children out of wedlock.  Given the statistics for this trend, Mr Steele assumes that only gays will marry and straights won’t. Is this how gays are undermining straight marriage, when straights started giving up on marriage long before any gays could become married?

Third, if social concerns are to be entirely decided based upon the merits of lower expenses for small businesses, shouldn’t Mr Steele advocate that nobody marry? He should promote the idea that each person must work for a business to obtain health insurance, for example, eliminating the need to provide spousal benefits which will reduce costs. I don’t think the party that prefers traditional stay-at-home moms can logically engage in permanent non-marital relationships for the future of the party — hardly traditional.

I don’t know whether to consider the concept promoted by Mr Steele as prejudice or reverse-prejudice. Does Mr Steele think of the employment of (unmarried) gays as some modern form of slavery? It certainly smacks of a formal endorsement of apartheid. These consequential concepts are something Mr Steele, of all people, should understand, appreciate and strive to avoid.

Michael Steele continues to find ways to not only further marginalize the Republican Party into obsolecence, but to further marginalize himself into unemployment.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Atheism, Government, Logic, Morality, Sexuality | No Comments »