The Daytona Beach News-Journal reported on 23 October that New Smyrna Beach High School teacher Jill Cicciarelli may be fined thousands of dollars for helping students legally register to vote.
Prepping 17-year-olds for the privileges and responsibilities of voting in a democracy is nothing new for civics teachers, but when Jill Cicciarelli organized a drive at the start of the school year to get students pre-registered, she ran afoul of Florida's new and controversial election law.
Among other things, the new rules require that third parties who sign up new voters register with the state and that they submit applications within 48 hours. The law also reduces the time for early voting from 14 days to eight and requires voters who want to give a new address at the polls to use a provisional ballot.
At least the school is not upset with her.
For the students involved in the voter registration drive, the incident has proven an unsolicited lesson in real-life civics, New Smyrna Beach High Principal Jim Tager said.
"You're talking about a high-energy teacher who cares about her kids, cares about her community and cares about her country," he said. "We want to do things by the rules. We just didn't know about these. In the end, I think this has become a good real-life lesson."
What is upsetting is that this law is limiting the ability of educators to empower their students. To deny those who are legally entitled to vote the easy opportunity to do so is unAmerican. Thanks to Care2.
3 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings article.
14 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
22 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
14 November 2011, FollowUp 4.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
8 March 2012, FollowUp 6.
2 April 2012, FollowUp 7.
3 June 2012, FollowUp 8.
06 November 2011
Praise: David Groshoff's Modest Proposal
In the spirit of Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being a Burden on Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick, Professor David Groshoff of Western State University College of Law, has written a short offering to effectively end bullying in schools. Okay, not really to end bullying, but to get more conversation started. His essay is well worth reading.
Weird: Extraterrestrial Overlords
I don't usually take this blog in the direction of science fiction / fantasy because that is usually not part of politics. Sometimes, though, politics overlaps the absurd.
The White House announced that it is, indeed, looking for E.T., but has not found evidence. Really? More than seventeen thousand people signed petitions demanding to know. Really?
Belief in extraterrestrial life is not new. A majority of Americans polled in 1997 believed in it. Three years ago a poll found more people believed in aliens and ghosts than in God. With profound apologies to God, there are even religions who believe that God is an extraterrestrial.
The fact is that anything that requires belief of that which cannot be proven must be believed as a matter of faith or not at all. The evidence for all religions in internal; they are based on belief in their own texts and doctrines which are all of the evidence that there is. Stating this does not disprove any religion and does not disprove alien overlords. But, it must be time to set aside those aspects of faith that are incongruous with the facts of science.
Yes, let's keep looking for E.T. The process of exploring inner and outer space results in expansion of human knowledge, a good thing. But petitioning for disclosure of that which does not exist is a waste of government resources and human time that could be much better spent elsewhere.
The White House announced that it is, indeed, looking for E.T., but has not found evidence. Really? More than seventeen thousand people signed petitions demanding to know. Really?
Belief in extraterrestrial life is not new. A majority of Americans polled in 1997 believed in it. Three years ago a poll found more people believed in aliens and ghosts than in God. With profound apologies to God, there are even religions who believe that God is an extraterrestrial.
The fact is that anything that requires belief of that which cannot be proven must be believed as a matter of faith or not at all. The evidence for all religions in internal; they are based on belief in their own texts and doctrines which are all of the evidence that there is. Stating this does not disprove any religion and does not disprove alien overlords. But, it must be time to set aside those aspects of faith that are incongruous with the facts of science.
Yes, let's keep looking for E.T. The process of exploring inner and outer space results in expansion of human knowledge, a good thing. But petitioning for disclosure of that which does not exist is a waste of government resources and human time that could be much better spent elsewhere.
Praise: Lady Gaga's Born This Way Foundation
Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, better known as Lady Gaga, has been an advocate for the LGBTQ community since she started performing. Her hit song Born This Way seems to have become the new gay and lesbian anthem. Along with Harvard University, the MacArthur Foundation, and the California Endowment, Lady Gaga is creating the Born This Way Foundation to empower youth and combat bullying. The Born This Way Foundation will officially launch in 2012.
Thanks to the Huffington Post for the heads up.
Thanks to the Huffington Post for the heads up.
05 November 2011
Praise: The National Memo takes on FRC
The Family Research Council has awarded Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh (R) their True Blue designation for votes against health care and Planned Parenthood and for DOMA, and other "institutions of marriage and family". This is happening while Mr. Walsh is in a court battle to avoid paying more than $100,000.00 in back child support. Hypocrisy has a new name.
I was thinking of writing something lengthy, but then read Tea Party Morality at the National Memo. They said it so well, the link will suffice.
I was thinking of writing something lengthy, but then read Tea Party Morality at the National Memo. They said it so well, the link will suffice.
Repudiation: Hertiage Foundation Assessing Teacher Pay
On 1 November, the Heritage Foundation published a "study" titled Assessing the Compensation of Public-School Teachers. A study that uses assumptions to create an appearance of much higher pay than is real.
The first point they make is to base comparison of ability on standardized testing. Traditionally one of the considerations when comparing compensation is to compare the number of years required to prepare for a field and the degrees or certifications required. This study disregards that.
The wage gap between teachers and non-teachers disappears when both groups are matched on an objective measure of cognitive ability rather than on years of education.
They go on to claim standardized test results, including IQ scores is a better measure.
Although teachers as a group score above the national average on intelligence tests, their scores fall below the average for other college graduates. This implies that, to the extent that cognitive ability affects earnings independently of education, ordinary wage regressions may overestimate teacher earnings relative to those of other professions.
and
As both a direct measure of acquired knowledge and an indirect measure of innate ability, teacher education does not compare well to education in other fields. The result is that years of education could be a highly misleading measure of teacher skill.
Let me acknowledge that there are problems with some teacher training and acceptance of poorly prepared college students into teacher education programs. But, that is a separate problem from wage scales.
The big problem with this criterion is that traditional measurements of cognitive ability are notoriously incomplete. The beginning point for understanding the limitations of IQ and similar assessments is the study of Multiple Intelligences, as expressed first by Howard Gardner. In short, IQ tests are very good at assessing how well a person is prepared to take IQ tests. Many smart people express their intelligence in other ways.
In the classroom, one needs teachers who are intelligent far beyond standardized tests. A simplistic breakdown is to consider that some people are more adept at visual learning, some at auditory learning, and some at kinesthetic learning. IQ tests and other standardized tests focus on visual learning. Most students are kinesthetic learners.
Using standardized cognitive assessments as a basis for comparison is flawed.
A second consideration for why education degrees and certifications should be considered is the cost. Part of why medical doctors have such high wages is to enable them to pay off student loans, which are often ridiculously large. While teachers do not incur the burden of medical doctors, the cost of education is far from trivial and should be considered.
Their second point is a comparison with private school teachers.
Public-school teachers earn higher wages than private-school teachers, even when the comparison is limited to secular schools with standard curriculums.
Let me concede this point immediately. It is not surprising that private schools, employers who do not need to work with collective bargaining, pay less.
The third point is related to changing professions
Workers who switch from non-teaching jobs to teaching jobs receive a wage increase of roughly 9 percent. Teachers who change to non-teaching jobs, on the other hand, see their wages decrease by roughly 3 percent. This is the opposite of what one would expect if teachers were underpaid.
The change from a non-teaching job to a teaching job is a big change. In my case, while still working in industry, I went to school half time for four years (this is after earning my B.S. and many years in industry), to certify to teach. The certification work also pulled me about half-way to an M.S. which I completed later.
The claim of an increase in pay, after several years of training, makes some sense. This is not a comparison of the same person before leaving industry and after starting to teach because the teacher has had to make a considerable investment of time and money in the training. It is also going to vary tremendously between prior vocations (those in business management, engineering, and scientific fields are particularly likely to see a wage drop with the change in vocation ... I did).
Since there are no national teaching certification standards, although some guidelines were provided by the No Child Left Behind law, each state establishes its own criteria. There are neither standard certification classes across states nor alternative certification. Some states allow military veterans to skip certain education courses or people coming from industry to take certification courses while they begin teaching.
The change from education to industry does not usually involve a large investment in coursework. Since the types of jobs are usually very different and the former teacher does not have recent experience in industry, the wage cut makes sense.
None of this is indicative of teachers being overpaid. They slip in a complaint about teacher wages being tied to seniority.
The salary premium for public-school teachers ranged from 9 percent to 28 percent depending on teacher experience, with the least experienced receiving the highest premiums.
Quick translation, those with the most classroom experience, but least experience in industry, earn the most. Ask almost any teacher and they will tell you that time working with students is crucial to becoming a good teacher and, perhaps, a great teacher. This is not the same as other vocations where one can become an expert quickly.
Most of the rest of this so-called study is a complaint about how wonderful the benefit package is for teachers.
We had a history of teachers accepting lower wages in exchange for better benefits. Some of that has been changing with the attacks on teacher pension plans and collective bargaining, notably in New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Bringing a teacher up to speed for a particular school takes time, making it cost effective for schools to invest in the health of their teachers.
There is a large section of complaint about the methodology used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to categorize benefits. This is the standard, but those numbers would not help reach the results desired by the authors. So, they recalculate. I am not going to defend the particular calculations of the BLS, but will discuss the larger aspects of typical teacher benefit packages.
Pensions can be confusing. As in industry, most teachers are eligible for a pension plan and are allowed to contribute to a private plan that they control. While the latter is a 401(K) for most people, teachers are not allowed that but are allowed a 403(B) which is supposed to be quite similar. Honestly, I have not studied the differences between these. Unlike most people, many teachers are not eligible for Social Security. The full comparison is not something that I have seen presented without tremendous bias.
Health benefits are far from regular across states. I have taught in three states and been under very different plans in two of those states and had no health coverage in the third. Some teachers do enjoy "Cadillac health plans", but this is being eroded by the state of the health care insurance system and politicians, against notably in New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Part of the complaint in the study is that teachers get great pay while having short hours.
[P]aid time off reported in BLS data reflects leave only during a 37-week work year and excludes 15 weeks of leave during summers and holidays.
The study goes on to allow for 195 work days, typical of school requirements for teachers. What is missing from this is that teachers are working beyond the time spent with students. Most teachers are spending weekends grading papers and creating new lessons and assessments. My typical summer includes only two to three weeks where I am not taking classes or attending workshops and seminars (sometimes paid for by the school or by grants and sometimes out of pocket). Teaching is not a 9 - 5 profession with weekends off and two or three weeks of vacation. It is ten to fourteen hours a day, seven days a week from September through June (or in some areas August through May), with outside training over the "summer vacation".
There is a section on job security. Given recent layoffs in many states, teacher jobs are clearly not secure.
State and local governments seeking to balance their budgets in difficult times should take a close look at teacher compensation, which is considerably higher than necessary to retain the existing teacher workforce. More fundamental reform of teacher compensation would scrap the existing rewards for education and experience—and instead pay market rates to teachers who are measurably effective.
The notion that teachers are overpaid is silly. Yes, state economies are tight ... largely due to political decisions that have placed our entire economy in peril. Placing more of the burden on the backs of teachers does not make any sense. Instead of restricting educational budgets, we should be investing in education as we did in the 1950s and 1960s, much to the benefit of our entire economy.
The first point they make is to base comparison of ability on standardized testing. Traditionally one of the considerations when comparing compensation is to compare the number of years required to prepare for a field and the degrees or certifications required. This study disregards that.
The wage gap between teachers and non-teachers disappears when both groups are matched on an objective measure of cognitive ability rather than on years of education.
They go on to claim standardized test results, including IQ scores is a better measure.
Although teachers as a group score above the national average on intelligence tests, their scores fall below the average for other college graduates. This implies that, to the extent that cognitive ability affects earnings independently of education, ordinary wage regressions may overestimate teacher earnings relative to those of other professions.
and
As both a direct measure of acquired knowledge and an indirect measure of innate ability, teacher education does not compare well to education in other fields. The result is that years of education could be a highly misleading measure of teacher skill.
Let me acknowledge that there are problems with some teacher training and acceptance of poorly prepared college students into teacher education programs. But, that is a separate problem from wage scales.
The big problem with this criterion is that traditional measurements of cognitive ability are notoriously incomplete. The beginning point for understanding the limitations of IQ and similar assessments is the study of Multiple Intelligences, as expressed first by Howard Gardner. In short, IQ tests are very good at assessing how well a person is prepared to take IQ tests. Many smart people express their intelligence in other ways.
In the classroom, one needs teachers who are intelligent far beyond standardized tests. A simplistic breakdown is to consider that some people are more adept at visual learning, some at auditory learning, and some at kinesthetic learning. IQ tests and other standardized tests focus on visual learning. Most students are kinesthetic learners.
Using standardized cognitive assessments as a basis for comparison is flawed.
A second consideration for why education degrees and certifications should be considered is the cost. Part of why medical doctors have such high wages is to enable them to pay off student loans, which are often ridiculously large. While teachers do not incur the burden of medical doctors, the cost of education is far from trivial and should be considered.
Their second point is a comparison with private school teachers.
Public-school teachers earn higher wages than private-school teachers, even when the comparison is limited to secular schools with standard curriculums.
Let me concede this point immediately. It is not surprising that private schools, employers who do not need to work with collective bargaining, pay less.
The third point is related to changing professions
Workers who switch from non-teaching jobs to teaching jobs receive a wage increase of roughly 9 percent. Teachers who change to non-teaching jobs, on the other hand, see their wages decrease by roughly 3 percent. This is the opposite of what one would expect if teachers were underpaid.
The change from a non-teaching job to a teaching job is a big change. In my case, while still working in industry, I went to school half time for four years (this is after earning my B.S. and many years in industry), to certify to teach. The certification work also pulled me about half-way to an M.S. which I completed later.
The claim of an increase in pay, after several years of training, makes some sense. This is not a comparison of the same person before leaving industry and after starting to teach because the teacher has had to make a considerable investment of time and money in the training. It is also going to vary tremendously between prior vocations (those in business management, engineering, and scientific fields are particularly likely to see a wage drop with the change in vocation ... I did).
Since there are no national teaching certification standards, although some guidelines were provided by the No Child Left Behind law, each state establishes its own criteria. There are neither standard certification classes across states nor alternative certification. Some states allow military veterans to skip certain education courses or people coming from industry to take certification courses while they begin teaching.
The change from education to industry does not usually involve a large investment in coursework. Since the types of jobs are usually very different and the former teacher does not have recent experience in industry, the wage cut makes sense.
None of this is indicative of teachers being overpaid. They slip in a complaint about teacher wages being tied to seniority.
The salary premium for public-school teachers ranged from 9 percent to 28 percent depending on teacher experience, with the least experienced receiving the highest premiums.
Quick translation, those with the most classroom experience, but least experience in industry, earn the most. Ask almost any teacher and they will tell you that time working with students is crucial to becoming a good teacher and, perhaps, a great teacher. This is not the same as other vocations where one can become an expert quickly.
Most of the rest of this so-called study is a complaint about how wonderful the benefit package is for teachers.
We had a history of teachers accepting lower wages in exchange for better benefits. Some of that has been changing with the attacks on teacher pension plans and collective bargaining, notably in New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Bringing a teacher up to speed for a particular school takes time, making it cost effective for schools to invest in the health of their teachers.
There is a large section of complaint about the methodology used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to categorize benefits. This is the standard, but those numbers would not help reach the results desired by the authors. So, they recalculate. I am not going to defend the particular calculations of the BLS, but will discuss the larger aspects of typical teacher benefit packages.
Pensions can be confusing. As in industry, most teachers are eligible for a pension plan and are allowed to contribute to a private plan that they control. While the latter is a 401(K) for most people, teachers are not allowed that but are allowed a 403(B) which is supposed to be quite similar. Honestly, I have not studied the differences between these. Unlike most people, many teachers are not eligible for Social Security. The full comparison is not something that I have seen presented without tremendous bias.
Health benefits are far from regular across states. I have taught in three states and been under very different plans in two of those states and had no health coverage in the third. Some teachers do enjoy "Cadillac health plans", but this is being eroded by the state of the health care insurance system and politicians, against notably in New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Part of the complaint in the study is that teachers get great pay while having short hours.
[P]aid time off reported in BLS data reflects leave only during a 37-week work year and excludes 15 weeks of leave during summers and holidays.
The study goes on to allow for 195 work days, typical of school requirements for teachers. What is missing from this is that teachers are working beyond the time spent with students. Most teachers are spending weekends grading papers and creating new lessons and assessments. My typical summer includes only two to three weeks where I am not taking classes or attending workshops and seminars (sometimes paid for by the school or by grants and sometimes out of pocket). Teaching is not a 9 - 5 profession with weekends off and two or three weeks of vacation. It is ten to fourteen hours a day, seven days a week from September through June (or in some areas August through May), with outside training over the "summer vacation".
There is a section on job security. Given recent layoffs in many states, teacher jobs are clearly not secure.
State and local governments seeking to balance their budgets in difficult times should take a close look at teacher compensation, which is considerably higher than necessary to retain the existing teacher workforce. More fundamental reform of teacher compensation would scrap the existing rewards for education and experience—and instead pay market rates to teachers who are measurably effective.
The notion that teachers are overpaid is silly. Yes, state economies are tight ... largely due to political decisions that have placed our entire economy in peril. Placing more of the burden on the backs of teachers does not make any sense. Instead of restricting educational budgets, we should be investing in education as we did in the 1950s and 1960s, much to the benefit of our entire economy.
04 November 2011
Repudiation: American TFP Says Homosexual Marriage Is Harmful
This post was started in late October, just before we lost power and internet service. Finally here.
A lay Roman Catholic organization calling itself the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) has written a brochure titled 10 Reasons Why Homosexual "Marriage" is Harmful and Must be Opposed. They are wrong and I will show how and why they are wrong.
1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
Marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. The Bible has many stories of polygamous marriage. How many wives did Solomon have? (See 1 Kings 11 for the answer).
By nature, we now know of more than fifteen hundred species that have homosexual activity, more than five hundred of them well documented.
Procreation is one of the reasons for marriage, but it is hardly the only reason. We allow elderly heterosexuals, where the woman is well beyond menopause, to wed. We allow couples who are known by their physicians to be infertile to wed. Procreation is not the determining factor in a marriage.
Children are important to some married couples and not to others. With more than one hundred thousand children in foster care and waiting for adoption, those who are infertile certainly can choose adoption. There are enough children.
The unity and wellbeing of the spouses is as important to same sex couples as it is to opposite sex couples.
Those who favor marriage equality are not proposing something entirely different. There are already many different kinds of marriage relationships with opposite sex couples. If a couple does not find the right complementary relationship that marriage will fail. Heterosexuals already fail at marriage half the time, here are some statistics from Dr. Phil.
In terms of perpetuation of the species, the seven billionth human will be on the planet at the end of October 2011. This is more than three times the sustainable population for the Earth. The risk to homo sapiens is not a lack of children but an excess.
2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural laws most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the acts purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
By nature, we now know of more than fifteen hundred species that have homosexual activity, more than five hundred of them well documented. By natural human law, we know that homosexuality has been part of human nature for millennia, discussed by the Bible and ancient Greek society and probably much earlier.
The Bible focused on procreation because it was necessary for a small tribe to survive. Noah was promised that his descendents would fill the Earth (Genesis 9). We have. This focus on natural law meaning sexual relations are limited to procreation is antiquated and inappropriate to the world today.
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the childs best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a childs best interests.
No. I previously discussed a report that disproves this contention. Children do as well with same sex parents as with opposite sex parents. TFP is basing this allegation on assumptions or data that has been disproven.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyones perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
Validation of all families is a good thing. It is good for the spouses and the children.
There is no need to place marriage in quotation marks. A marriage is a marriage. No moral values, save restrictions held by some sects of some religions, are obscured or violated.
"Traditional" marriage does not suffer in any way from marriage equality. If my partner and I were to marry, which is not legal where we live, no opposite gender couples are at risk of divorce because of us. Marriage equality would enhance fidelity among the LGBTQ community, something usually seen as a moral good.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
There are important similarities between the fights for equality. Notably, the arguments made against mixed race marriage and same sex marriage are quite similar. There is a Wikipedia page that documents some of the arguments under the heading United States:
In 1958, the Christian fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, at the time a defender of segregation, in a sermon railed against integration, warning that it would lead to miscegenation, which would "destroy our [white] race eventually.".[28]
Asians were also specifically included in some state laws. California continued to ban Asian/white marriages until the Perez v. Sharp decision in 1948.
In the United States, segregationists and Christian identity groups have claimed that several passages in the Bible,[30] for example the stories of Phinehas and of the so-called "curse of Ham", should be understood as referring to miscegenation and that certain verses expressly forbid it. Most theologians read these verses and references as forbidding inter-religious marriage, rather than inter-racial marriage.[31]
As discussed above, the only thing about nature and two individuals of the same gender is that they cannot have children directly. They can adopt. But, despite the ongoing TFP assumption, marriage is not just about procreation.
The analogy is one of the innate desire for companionship and equality. The SCOTUS has referred to marriage as a fundamental right, originally in Loving v. Virginia (the case which brought down laws that prohibited marriage between blacks and whites).
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
A family is not limited to heterosexual couples with natural progeny. (This seems like the same argument over and over). A heterosexual couple who adopt a child is a family. A heterosexual couple who do not adopt a child is also a family. So is a homosexual couple, with or without an adoption, a family.
7. It Defeats the States Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
TFP is correct that one of the reasons for the State to bestow numerous benefits on marriage is for the sake of children. This is not the only reason or infertile heterosexual couples would be prohibited from marrying.
Marriage does strengthen society by helping establish stable unions between people. This helps couples purchase homes together, have stability within a community, leading to more civic participation. Marriage of any two (consenting adults) people is good for the community. Many married couples are in closed relationships, reducing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. For these, and more reasons, marriage is good for the community and good for the State. This is as true of same sex marriage as of opposite sex marriage.
The claim that homosexual marriage is for personal gratification, implying sex, is absurd on its face. One does not need to be married to enjoy sex. Marriage, ideally, includes sex but is not limited to it.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
Every human being seeks and craves acceptance. For the LGBTQ community, acceptance includes the feeling of safety (given the amount of violence towards gays and lesbians and other who do not “appear normal”) which we see in the Maslow hierarchy of needs. Of course we want acceptance.
Implied in the words "teach its acceptability to children" is the notion that sexual orientation is a choice. Medical science, however, is clear that individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
Yes, doing business means doing business with everyone. A shop owner is never required to like all of her or his customers, but must accept their money. Renting to someone does not require that one approve of their politics, their sexual relationships, or their ancestry. It is just business. Get over it.
No one is asking that anyone become a homosexual (as if that were possible), marry a person of the same gender against their will, or change what happens in their church. Tolerance and acceptance are simple acts, rather like what Jesus preached.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and samesex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights
movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at
changing people’s view of homosexuality.
Perhaps marriage equality is the next step in the trend that TFP refers to as the sexual revolution. If so, there are a couple of corrections that must be made.
By definition, a lesbian couple does not enjoy "sodomy". A recent study, to be printed in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, found that about half of male homosexual couples do not enjoy "sodomy". Whether or not a particular couple participates in anal sex is outside of my arguments for marriage equality. Yes, this is an uncomfortable topic for many people, undoubtedly the same reason so many homosexuals do not do this particular sexual activity.
The slippery slope arguments are absurd. Nonetheless, they must be addressed.
Prohibiting incest between those who are not siblings or parents with children is a relatively recent legal norm. It was common, as recently as the first half of the twentieth century, for first cousins to wed. In many families, there are heterosexuals with "double cousins". Some states still allow first cousin marriage. Prohibiting siblings and prohibiting parent-child sexual relationships strikes me as reasonable.
Pedophilia is a problem with heterosexuals even more than with homosexuals, with about eleven heterosexual pedophiles to every one homosexual pedophile. The call for marriage equality is for equal access to marriage among consenting adults. Perhaps the age of consent should be subject to debate as it is in Europe. The age of consent is not specified in the Bible, but was commonly quite low by modern standards. Most girls would wed at age twelve or thirteen. But, the modern idea of prepubescent or newly pubescent children having sexual relations is a mistake. This should not follow from marriage equality.
The call for marriage equality is for equal access to marriage among consenting adults. Bestiality does not fall within this call as animals are not capable of giving consent. If someone develops a technique for full bi-directional language communication between animals and humans, then, maybe, this should be reconsidered. Until then, no.
Other forms of unnatural behavior is back to the assumption that homosexual is unnatural which, as shown above, is a false conjecture.
Yes, we want to change people's views of homosexuality. That is what asking for tolerance and acceptance is about. Marriage equality is about civil rights. Marriage equality is about human rights.
10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)
We do not all agree as to what offends God. The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not specify any particular view of God as a correct one for the United States. Even with Judaism and Christianity we have remarkably diverse views which have resulted in many different denominations and sects of these religions. We do not all agree that homosexuality or same sex marriage is offensive to God.
In response to Genesis 1:28-29, three to four thousand years ago, there were many small tribes of people struggling for survival. Numbers mattered. Those who could not or would not procreate might be useful for the moment, but were not helping ensure the future.
This was the first time that God commanded people. The command is to have sex and procreate. We, the humans, have certainly done so. We have filled the Earth, diminished the number of fish and birds and nearly every larger animal on the planet. With over seven billion people on the planet, we have filled the Earth.
As I am not a Christian, I do not follow the teachings of Mark or Jesus. I do not feel obligated to use their teachings as a basis for my morality. I am not in a position to critique their mistakes.
Sodom and Gomorrah is, indeed, a tale from the Bible, but it was not about homosexuality. The sin that caused the destruction of these cities was a failure of hospitality, which was an important rule for all peoples of the region, and that the inhabitants of the city were evil. To quote Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut in explaining Genesis 19:5 in The Torah: A Modern Commentary from the Union for Reform Judaism,
The story's focus is not on homosexuality as such but on the Sodomites' intent to rape the two men, thereby violating the basic laws of hospitality. Hence Lot's argument, when he pleads with them to reconsider, is to say: "They have come under the shelter of my roof" (v. 8). Abraham's model hospitality is here contrasted with its extreme opposite. The English word "sodomy" (male homosexual intercourse or copulation with an animal) derives from the traditional Christian interpretation of this tale.
The traditional Jewish interpretation is not the same as the traditional Christian. When there is more than one interpretation, it would be wrong for the United States to base its laws on religious interpretations.
For those who are sexually oriented to members of the same sex but who choose to not express themselves sexually lest they are damned by their religion's interpretations of the Bible, that must be their absolute right. However, to deny equal rights to those who do not hold these interpretations, whether or not they love God, is wrong.
A lay Roman Catholic organization calling itself the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) has written a brochure titled 10 Reasons Why Homosexual "Marriage" is Harmful and Must be Opposed. They are wrong and I will show how and why they are wrong.
1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
Marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. The Bible has many stories of polygamous marriage. How many wives did Solomon have? (See 1 Kings 11 for the answer).
By nature, we now know of more than fifteen hundred species that have homosexual activity, more than five hundred of them well documented.
Procreation is one of the reasons for marriage, but it is hardly the only reason. We allow elderly heterosexuals, where the woman is well beyond menopause, to wed. We allow couples who are known by their physicians to be infertile to wed. Procreation is not the determining factor in a marriage.
Children are important to some married couples and not to others. With more than one hundred thousand children in foster care and waiting for adoption, those who are infertile certainly can choose adoption. There are enough children.
The unity and wellbeing of the spouses is as important to same sex couples as it is to opposite sex couples.
Those who favor marriage equality are not proposing something entirely different. There are already many different kinds of marriage relationships with opposite sex couples. If a couple does not find the right complementary relationship that marriage will fail. Heterosexuals already fail at marriage half the time, here are some statistics from Dr. Phil.
In terms of perpetuation of the species, the seven billionth human will be on the planet at the end of October 2011. This is more than three times the sustainable population for the Earth. The risk to homo sapiens is not a lack of children but an excess.
2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural laws most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the acts purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
By nature, we now know of more than fifteen hundred species that have homosexual activity, more than five hundred of them well documented. By natural human law, we know that homosexuality has been part of human nature for millennia, discussed by the Bible and ancient Greek society and probably much earlier.
The Bible focused on procreation because it was necessary for a small tribe to survive. Noah was promised that his descendents would fill the Earth (Genesis 9). We have. This focus on natural law meaning sexual relations are limited to procreation is antiquated and inappropriate to the world today.
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the childs best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a childs best interests.
No. I previously discussed a report that disproves this contention. Children do as well with same sex parents as with opposite sex parents. TFP is basing this allegation on assumptions or data that has been disproven.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyones perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
Validation of all families is a good thing. It is good for the spouses and the children.
There is no need to place marriage in quotation marks. A marriage is a marriage. No moral values, save restrictions held by some sects of some religions, are obscured or violated.
"Traditional" marriage does not suffer in any way from marriage equality. If my partner and I were to marry, which is not legal where we live, no opposite gender couples are at risk of divorce because of us. Marriage equality would enhance fidelity among the LGBTQ community, something usually seen as a moral good.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
There are important similarities between the fights for equality. Notably, the arguments made against mixed race marriage and same sex marriage are quite similar. There is a Wikipedia page that documents some of the arguments under the heading United States:
In 1958, the Christian fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, at the time a defender of segregation, in a sermon railed against integration, warning that it would lead to miscegenation, which would "destroy our [white] race eventually.".[28]
Asians were also specifically included in some state laws. California continued to ban Asian/white marriages until the Perez v. Sharp decision in 1948.
In the United States, segregationists and Christian identity groups have claimed that several passages in the Bible,[30] for example the stories of Phinehas and of the so-called "curse of Ham", should be understood as referring to miscegenation and that certain verses expressly forbid it. Most theologians read these verses and references as forbidding inter-religious marriage, rather than inter-racial marriage.[31]
As discussed above, the only thing about nature and two individuals of the same gender is that they cannot have children directly. They can adopt. But, despite the ongoing TFP assumption, marriage is not just about procreation.
The analogy is one of the innate desire for companionship and equality. The SCOTUS has referred to marriage as a fundamental right, originally in Loving v. Virginia (the case which brought down laws that prohibited marriage between blacks and whites).
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
A family is not limited to heterosexual couples with natural progeny. (This seems like the same argument over and over). A heterosexual couple who adopt a child is a family. A heterosexual couple who do not adopt a child is also a family. So is a homosexual couple, with or without an adoption, a family.
7. It Defeats the States Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
TFP is correct that one of the reasons for the State to bestow numerous benefits on marriage is for the sake of children. This is not the only reason or infertile heterosexual couples would be prohibited from marrying.
Marriage does strengthen society by helping establish stable unions between people. This helps couples purchase homes together, have stability within a community, leading to more civic participation. Marriage of any two (consenting adults) people is good for the community. Many married couples are in closed relationships, reducing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. For these, and more reasons, marriage is good for the community and good for the State. This is as true of same sex marriage as of opposite sex marriage.
The claim that homosexual marriage is for personal gratification, implying sex, is absurd on its face. One does not need to be married to enjoy sex. Marriage, ideally, includes sex but is not limited to it.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
Every human being seeks and craves acceptance. For the LGBTQ community, acceptance includes the feeling of safety (given the amount of violence towards gays and lesbians and other who do not “appear normal”) which we see in the Maslow hierarchy of needs. Of course we want acceptance.
Implied in the words "teach its acceptability to children" is the notion that sexual orientation is a choice. Medical science, however, is clear that individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
Yes, doing business means doing business with everyone. A shop owner is never required to like all of her or his customers, but must accept their money. Renting to someone does not require that one approve of their politics, their sexual relationships, or their ancestry. It is just business. Get over it.
No one is asking that anyone become a homosexual (as if that were possible), marry a person of the same gender against their will, or change what happens in their church. Tolerance and acceptance are simple acts, rather like what Jesus preached.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and samesex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights
movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at
changing people’s view of homosexuality.
Perhaps marriage equality is the next step in the trend that TFP refers to as the sexual revolution. If so, there are a couple of corrections that must be made.
By definition, a lesbian couple does not enjoy "sodomy". A recent study, to be printed in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, found that about half of male homosexual couples do not enjoy "sodomy". Whether or not a particular couple participates in anal sex is outside of my arguments for marriage equality. Yes, this is an uncomfortable topic for many people, undoubtedly the same reason so many homosexuals do not do this particular sexual activity.
The slippery slope arguments are absurd. Nonetheless, they must be addressed.
Prohibiting incest between those who are not siblings or parents with children is a relatively recent legal norm. It was common, as recently as the first half of the twentieth century, for first cousins to wed. In many families, there are heterosexuals with "double cousins". Some states still allow first cousin marriage. Prohibiting siblings and prohibiting parent-child sexual relationships strikes me as reasonable.
Pedophilia is a problem with heterosexuals even more than with homosexuals, with about eleven heterosexual pedophiles to every one homosexual pedophile. The call for marriage equality is for equal access to marriage among consenting adults. Perhaps the age of consent should be subject to debate as it is in Europe. The age of consent is not specified in the Bible, but was commonly quite low by modern standards. Most girls would wed at age twelve or thirteen. But, the modern idea of prepubescent or newly pubescent children having sexual relations is a mistake. This should not follow from marriage equality.
The call for marriage equality is for equal access to marriage among consenting adults. Bestiality does not fall within this call as animals are not capable of giving consent. If someone develops a technique for full bi-directional language communication between animals and humans, then, maybe, this should be reconsidered. Until then, no.
Other forms of unnatural behavior is back to the assumption that homosexual is unnatural which, as shown above, is a false conjecture.
Yes, we want to change people's views of homosexuality. That is what asking for tolerance and acceptance is about. Marriage equality is about civil rights. Marriage equality is about human rights.
10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)
We do not all agree as to what offends God. The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not specify any particular view of God as a correct one for the United States. Even with Judaism and Christianity we have remarkably diverse views which have resulted in many different denominations and sects of these religions. We do not all agree that homosexuality or same sex marriage is offensive to God.
In response to Genesis 1:28-29, three to four thousand years ago, there were many small tribes of people struggling for survival. Numbers mattered. Those who could not or would not procreate might be useful for the moment, but were not helping ensure the future.
This was the first time that God commanded people. The command is to have sex and procreate. We, the humans, have certainly done so. We have filled the Earth, diminished the number of fish and birds and nearly every larger animal on the planet. With over seven billion people on the planet, we have filled the Earth.
As I am not a Christian, I do not follow the teachings of Mark or Jesus. I do not feel obligated to use their teachings as a basis for my morality. I am not in a position to critique their mistakes.
Sodom and Gomorrah is, indeed, a tale from the Bible, but it was not about homosexuality. The sin that caused the destruction of these cities was a failure of hospitality, which was an important rule for all peoples of the region, and that the inhabitants of the city were evil. To quote Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut in explaining Genesis 19:5 in The Torah: A Modern Commentary from the Union for Reform Judaism,
The story's focus is not on homosexuality as such but on the Sodomites' intent to rape the two men, thereby violating the basic laws of hospitality. Hence Lot's argument, when he pleads with them to reconsider, is to say: "They have come under the shelter of my roof" (v. 8). Abraham's model hospitality is here contrasted with its extreme opposite. The English word "sodomy" (male homosexual intercourse or copulation with an animal) derives from the traditional Christian interpretation of this tale.
The traditional Jewish interpretation is not the same as the traditional Christian. When there is more than one interpretation, it would be wrong for the United States to base its laws on religious interpretations.
For those who are sexually oriented to members of the same sex but who choose to not express themselves sexually lest they are damned by their religion's interpretations of the Bible, that must be their absolute right. However, to deny equal rights to those who do not hold these interpretations, whether or not they love God, is wrong.
Praise/Repudiation: Pilot Apology
Usually it is easy for me to assign a blog post a title with a preface of praise or repudiation. This one is a mixed bag. The Pilot, the Boston Roman Catholic newspaper, has issued an apology of sorts. In an article on 28 October, Daniel Avila called homosexual attraction a deception by the Devil. By way of apology, Mr. Avila wrote in part
Statements made in my column, 'Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction' of October 28, do not represent the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the column was not authorized for publication as is required policy for staff of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The teaching of Sacred Scripture and of the Catechism of the Catholic Church make it clear that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and have inviolable dignity.
So far, so good. This correction is praiseworthy. I particularly like the concession that all persons "have inviolable dignity." Would that the rest of his "apology" reflected that recognition of dignity. Mr. Avila continued
Likewise, the Church proclaims the sanctity of marriage as the permanent, faithful, fruitful union of one man and one woman.
So much for inviolable dignity. The brief acknowledgement of dignity clearly does not include anything approaching equality. The initial column was disgusting, as was reflected by comments printed by MSNBC.
The gay Catholics group DignityUSA says the column was outrageous and inflicted "tremendous damage on the souls" of gay people.
The Human Rights Campaign said Thursday it's a shame the archdiocese ran a column ignoring the science about sexual orientation.
This "apology" corrects a technical theological error but does not remove the underlying bigotry of the position of the Roman Catholic Church on LGBTQ equality. As such, repudiation.
Statements made in my column, 'Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction' of October 28, do not represent the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the column was not authorized for publication as is required policy for staff of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The teaching of Sacred Scripture and of the Catechism of the Catholic Church make it clear that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and have inviolable dignity.
So far, so good. This correction is praiseworthy. I particularly like the concession that all persons "have inviolable dignity." Would that the rest of his "apology" reflected that recognition of dignity. Mr. Avila continued
Likewise, the Church proclaims the sanctity of marriage as the permanent, faithful, fruitful union of one man and one woman.
So much for inviolable dignity. The brief acknowledgement of dignity clearly does not include anything approaching equality. The initial column was disgusting, as was reflected by comments printed by MSNBC.
The gay Catholics group DignityUSA says the column was outrageous and inflicted "tremendous damage on the souls" of gay people.
The Human Rights Campaign said Thursday it's a shame the archdiocese ran a column ignoring the science about sexual orientation.
This "apology" corrects a technical theological error but does not remove the underlying bigotry of the position of the Roman Catholic Church on LGBTQ equality. As such, repudiation.
03 November 2011
Sorry for the down time
Greetings, I am back. Following a bit of weather, we have electricity again and Internet service. My partner and I are lucky, our home did not suffer more than a few scratches (neighbors are working with insurance to have major repairs started). We are still cleaning up, but I should be back to posting in a day or two. Again, my apologies for not having an article for so long.
27 October 2011
FollowUp 2: Viki Knox, anti-gay teacher
On 17 October, I wrote about Ms. Knox's hateful writings on Facebook; writings that Garden State Equality was kind enough to save and place on-line after Ms. Knox removed them from her page. After a "Lesbian Gay Bi Transgender History Month" bulletin board was put up at Union High School in New Jersey, Ms. Knox wrote about how perverted homosexuality is and how she does not have to tolerate anyone.
One of the latest coming to her defense is Eugene Delgaudio, the self-styled Public Advocate of the United States. In an e-mail sent today, he writes
The Radical homosexuals are determined to run Mrs. Knox out of her school and out of a job. Their radical supporters are staging aggressive protests at her school to frighten her into quitting.
No. The goal is to have teachers who accept all of their students. Ms. Knox wrote radical statements, words that condemn LGBTQ students. I would be much happier if somehow Ms. Knox would grow beyond her bigotry and welcome students who do not follow her narrow beliefs.
Outrageously, Governor Chris Christie has come out against the Family in this fight, calling Mrs. Knox’s Christian beliefs “disgusting.” It’s no wonder that he has publicly endorsed Mitt Romney for president, who has had more positions on the Family than Newt Gingrich has had wives.
No. Governor Christie said that he found her comments "disturbing". I find Ms. Knox's comments disgusting. She can believe whatever she wants, so long as she keeps from attacking any of her students, including verbal attacks on Facebook, particularly LGBTQ students.
A much more nuanced argument is being offered by Mark on 21 October at Here I Blog, an explicitly Christian website. (I am not going to add this site to the Hate Groups list as a quick look around his site shows a very different focus than animosity toward others).
Union High School officials missed a great opportunity to teach the students about tolerance and First Amendment rights of those who have differing view points.
The school’s employment policy not withstanding, an opportunity was missed with . I have no idea what employee code of conduct Knox may have agreed to, but she was posting on her personal Facebook account.
The students could have been taught:
I discussed the code of conduct in my first post on this topic:
The following is from the Township of Union Public School System Code of Conduct & Core Values
We believe that this can be accomplished when:
* Teachers, parents, administrators, and other adult members of the Union Township Public School community, model respectful and respectable behavior toward one another in support of our core ethical values;
* Individuals acknowledge differences, demonstrate a respect for diversity, and recognize the worth of each individual;
* Individuals communicate concerns and/or suggestions in an appropriate and direct manner;
* Individuals utilize effective problem-solving and conflict-resolution strategies; and
* The dignity of every individual is protected and maintained.
It appears to me that Ms. Knox is in violation of this Code of Conduct.
Back to Mark's blog post. Yes, we all of First Amendment rights, including religious and speech rights. However, neither of those rights includes a guarantee of keeping a job. One cannot be imprisoned for being of any faith or saying almost any words (there are a few limitations when it comes to speech that is threatening or inciting violence).
The seat at the table is an excellent point. I believe that it is fair that Ms. Knox has a seat at the table, but which seat. Saying that "homosexuality is a perverted spirit" does not model respectful behavior. Ms. Knox did not "demonstrate a respect for diversity". She wrote in a way that did not respect "the dignity of every individual". It is important to remember that a Facebook page is not a private conversation, but a public statement.
So, yes, I believe that Ms. Knox should have a seat at the table. I think it is an excellent idea for her to participate as an invited guest of the school for a discussion such as Mark suggests. She should not be in a position where she is the role model for all students, particularly we do not need role models who publicly denounce others based on their nature.
One last quote from Mark:
This idea that Knox’ views promote bullying could have been another opportunity to teach the students. The lesson could have been that ideas do not necessarily lead to violence anymore than a group of people gathered and chanting against someone holding signs with the word “hate” on them does not promote violence. Sometimes irrational people who really do hate others act out physically against those they hate, but there is no evidence the Knox has called for bullying those with whom she disagrees.
The problem here is that bullying is encouraged whenever a group of people are demoted to second-class citizens, as people who are somehow less than human. It is difficult for most people to attack a fellow human, but if the victim can be seen as less than human it is possible. Ms. Knox depicts homosexuals as evil, as opposed to God, and implies that we are pedophiles. These depictions are demeaning and do lead to bullying and sometimes to teen suicide. One does not need to explicitly call for bullying to condone and enable it.
17 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post
19 October 2011, FollowUp 1
One of the latest coming to her defense is Eugene Delgaudio, the self-styled Public Advocate of the United States. In an e-mail sent today, he writes
The Radical homosexuals are determined to run Mrs. Knox out of her school and out of a job. Their radical supporters are staging aggressive protests at her school to frighten her into quitting.
No. The goal is to have teachers who accept all of their students. Ms. Knox wrote radical statements, words that condemn LGBTQ students. I would be much happier if somehow Ms. Knox would grow beyond her bigotry and welcome students who do not follow her narrow beliefs.
Outrageously, Governor Chris Christie has come out against the Family in this fight, calling Mrs. Knox’s Christian beliefs “disgusting.” It’s no wonder that he has publicly endorsed Mitt Romney for president, who has had more positions on the Family than Newt Gingrich has had wives.
No. Governor Christie said that he found her comments "disturbing". I find Ms. Knox's comments disgusting. She can believe whatever she wants, so long as she keeps from attacking any of her students, including verbal attacks on Facebook, particularly LGBTQ students.
A much more nuanced argument is being offered by Mark on 21 October at Here I Blog, an explicitly Christian website. (I am not going to add this site to the Hate Groups list as a quick look around his site shows a very different focus than animosity toward others).
Union High School officials missed a great opportunity to teach the students about tolerance and First Amendment rights of those who have differing view points.
The school’s employment policy not withstanding, an opportunity was missed with . I have no idea what employee code of conduct Knox may have agreed to, but she was posting on her personal Facebook account.
The students could have been taught:
- Tolerance: Instead of calling Knox’ positions “hate” it could have been explained that her positions are that of most Christians (IMO) and tolerance calls that she be treated respectfully while disagreeing with her views.
- First Amendment: Instead of calling for Knox’ firing they could have been taught that she and others have First Amendment rights to share their views in the same way the protesters have a right to protest.
I discussed the code of conduct in my first post on this topic:
The following is from the Township of Union Public School System Code of Conduct & Core Values
We believe that this can be accomplished when:
* Teachers, parents, administrators, and other adult members of the Union Township Public School community, model respectful and respectable behavior toward one another in support of our core ethical values;
* Individuals acknowledge differences, demonstrate a respect for diversity, and recognize the worth of each individual;
* Individuals communicate concerns and/or suggestions in an appropriate and direct manner;
* Individuals utilize effective problem-solving and conflict-resolution strategies; and
* The dignity of every individual is protected and maintained.
It appears to me that Ms. Knox is in violation of this Code of Conduct.
Back to Mark's blog post. Yes, we all of First Amendment rights, including religious and speech rights. However, neither of those rights includes a guarantee of keeping a job. One cannot be imprisoned for being of any faith or saying almost any words (there are a few limitations when it comes to speech that is threatening or inciting violence).
The seat at the table is an excellent point. I believe that it is fair that Ms. Knox has a seat at the table, but which seat. Saying that "homosexuality is a perverted spirit" does not model respectful behavior. Ms. Knox did not "demonstrate a respect for diversity". She wrote in a way that did not respect "the dignity of every individual". It is important to remember that a Facebook page is not a private conversation, but a public statement.
So, yes, I believe that Ms. Knox should have a seat at the table. I think it is an excellent idea for her to participate as an invited guest of the school for a discussion such as Mark suggests. She should not be in a position where she is the role model for all students, particularly we do not need role models who publicly denounce others based on their nature.
One last quote from Mark:
This idea that Knox’ views promote bullying could have been another opportunity to teach the students. The lesson could have been that ideas do not necessarily lead to violence anymore than a group of people gathered and chanting against someone holding signs with the word “hate” on them does not promote violence. Sometimes irrational people who really do hate others act out physically against those they hate, but there is no evidence the Knox has called for bullying those with whom she disagrees.
The problem here is that bullying is encouraged whenever a group of people are demoted to second-class citizens, as people who are somehow less than human. It is difficult for most people to attack a fellow human, but if the victim can be seen as less than human it is possible. Ms. Knox depicts homosexuals as evil, as opposed to God, and implies that we are pedophiles. These depictions are demeaning and do lead to bullying and sometimes to teen suicide. One does not need to explicitly call for bullying to condone and enable it.
17 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post
19 October 2011, FollowUp 1
FollowUp 5: Republican Denial of Climate Change
In the last followup of this series on 21 October 2011, we saw that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, conducted by a previously skeptical physicist, found that climate change is real. In this installment, I will take a quick look at three more studies.
13 October 2011, City College of New York, NYC, New York.
Professor Marco Tedesco is finding that glacial melting in Greenland continues even when temperatures are not at the warmest. This self-amplifying effect will make it very difficult to undo the effects of climate change.
“We are finding that even if you don’t have record-breaking highs, as long as warm temperatures persist you can get record-breaking melting because of positive feedback mechanisms,” said Professor Tedesco, who directs CCNY’s Cryospheric Processes Laboratory and also serves on CUNY Graduate Center doctoral faculty.
This is not simply a concern for the glaciers Professor Tedesco studied directly.
Professor Tedesco likens the melting process to a speeding steam locomotive. Higher temperatures act like coal shoveled into the boiler, increasing the pace of melting. In this scenario, “lower albedo is a downhill slope,” he says. The darker surfaces collect more heat. In this situation, even without more coal shoveled into the boiler, as a train heads downhill, it gains speed. In other words, melting accelerates.
Only new falling snow puts the brakes on the process, covering the darker ice in a reflective blanket, Professor Tedesco says. The model showed that this year’s snowfall couldn’t compensate for melting in previous years. “The process never slowed down as much as it had in the past,” he explained. “The brakes engaged only every now and again.”
The team’s observations indicate that the process was not limited to the glacier they visited; it is a large-scale effect. “It’s a sign that not only do albedo and other variables play a role in acceleration of melting, but that this acceleration is happening in many places all over Greenland,” he cautioned. “We are currently trying to understand if this is a trend or will become one. This will help us to improve models projecting future melting scenarios and predict how they might evolve.”
21 October 2011, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Professor Svante Björck has found that modern climate change is unlike previous shifts in climate. Today's changes are affecting both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, which is not natural.
Simultaneous warming events in the northern and southern hemispheres, have not occurred in the past 20 000 years, which is as far back as it is possible to analyse with sufficient precision to compare with modern developments. Svante Björck’s study thus goes 14 000 years further back in time than previous studies have done. “What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective”, he says.
He concludes that humans are a source of climate change.
“As long as we don’t find any evidence for earlier climate changes leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, we must see today’s global warming as an exception caused by human influence on the earth’s carbon cycle”, says Svante Björck, continuing: “this is a good example of how geological knowledge can be used to understand our world. It offers perspectives on how the earth functions without our direct influence and thus how and to what extent human activity affects the system.”
25 October 2011, Institute of Physics, a professional society of physicists.
Southwest China is experiencing increases in temperatures resulting in loss of glaciers.
Scientists examined data from 111 weather stations across south-western China and have shown that temperature patterns were consistent with warming, at a statistically significant level, between 1961 and 2008.
Of the 111 stations examined, 77 per cent displayed statistically significant increases in annual temperature.
Collating a broad range of research on glaciers during this time period, the researchers, from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, identified three characteristics that were consistent with the increasing trend in temperature; drastic retreats were observed in the glacial regions, along with large losses of mass and an increase in the area of glacial lakes.
This is not trivial change.
The implications of these changes are far more serious than simply altering the landscape; glaciers are an integral part of thousands of ecosystems and play a crucial role in sustaining human populations.
The synopsis at the Institute of Physics page concludes
The lead author of this study, Dr Zongxing Li, said, “I think glacial loss is caused mainly by rises in temperature, especially in the high altitude regions. From the 14 weather stations above 4000 m, there was an annual mean temperature increase of 1.73 °C from 1961 to 2008.
“It is imperative we determine the relationship between climate change and glacier variations, particularly the role of precipitation, as the consequences of glacial retreat are far reaching.”
How much more science is needed before the Republican presidential contenders pull their heads out of the sand and stop denying climate change? The truth is before us, the studies are reaching the same conclusions. The results are being found in the Americas, in Europe, in Asia. Denial of science is adequate grounds for any candidate for any office to lose my vote.
1 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings posting.
10 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
11 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
17 October 2011, FollowUp 3.
21 October 2011, FollowUp 4.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 6.
29 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
15 February 2012, FollowUp 8.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 March 2012, FollowUp 10.
11 March 2012, FollowUp 11.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 12.
13 October 2011, City College of New York, NYC, New York.
Professor Marco Tedesco is finding that glacial melting in Greenland continues even when temperatures are not at the warmest. This self-amplifying effect will make it very difficult to undo the effects of climate change.
“We are finding that even if you don’t have record-breaking highs, as long as warm temperatures persist you can get record-breaking melting because of positive feedback mechanisms,” said Professor Tedesco, who directs CCNY’s Cryospheric Processes Laboratory and also serves on CUNY Graduate Center doctoral faculty.
This is not simply a concern for the glaciers Professor Tedesco studied directly.
Professor Tedesco likens the melting process to a speeding steam locomotive. Higher temperatures act like coal shoveled into the boiler, increasing the pace of melting. In this scenario, “lower albedo is a downhill slope,” he says. The darker surfaces collect more heat. In this situation, even without more coal shoveled into the boiler, as a train heads downhill, it gains speed. In other words, melting accelerates.
Only new falling snow puts the brakes on the process, covering the darker ice in a reflective blanket, Professor Tedesco says. The model showed that this year’s snowfall couldn’t compensate for melting in previous years. “The process never slowed down as much as it had in the past,” he explained. “The brakes engaged only every now and again.”
The team’s observations indicate that the process was not limited to the glacier they visited; it is a large-scale effect. “It’s a sign that not only do albedo and other variables play a role in acceleration of melting, but that this acceleration is happening in many places all over Greenland,” he cautioned. “We are currently trying to understand if this is a trend or will become one. This will help us to improve models projecting future melting scenarios and predict how they might evolve.”
21 October 2011, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Professor Svante Björck has found that modern climate change is unlike previous shifts in climate. Today's changes are affecting both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, which is not natural.
Simultaneous warming events in the northern and southern hemispheres, have not occurred in the past 20 000 years, which is as far back as it is possible to analyse with sufficient precision to compare with modern developments. Svante Björck’s study thus goes 14 000 years further back in time than previous studies have done. “What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective”, he says.
He concludes that humans are a source of climate change.
“As long as we don’t find any evidence for earlier climate changes leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, we must see today’s global warming as an exception caused by human influence on the earth’s carbon cycle”, says Svante Björck, continuing: “this is a good example of how geological knowledge can be used to understand our world. It offers perspectives on how the earth functions without our direct influence and thus how and to what extent human activity affects the system.”
25 October 2011, Institute of Physics, a professional society of physicists.
Southwest China is experiencing increases in temperatures resulting in loss of glaciers.
Scientists examined data from 111 weather stations across south-western China and have shown that temperature patterns were consistent with warming, at a statistically significant level, between 1961 and 2008.
Of the 111 stations examined, 77 per cent displayed statistically significant increases in annual temperature.
Collating a broad range of research on glaciers during this time period, the researchers, from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, identified three characteristics that were consistent with the increasing trend in temperature; drastic retreats were observed in the glacial regions, along with large losses of mass and an increase in the area of glacial lakes.
This is not trivial change.
The implications of these changes are far more serious than simply altering the landscape; glaciers are an integral part of thousands of ecosystems and play a crucial role in sustaining human populations.
The synopsis at the Institute of Physics page concludes
The lead author of this study, Dr Zongxing Li, said, “I think glacial loss is caused mainly by rises in temperature, especially in the high altitude regions. From the 14 weather stations above 4000 m, there was an annual mean temperature increase of 1.73 °C from 1961 to 2008.
“It is imperative we determine the relationship between climate change and glacier variations, particularly the role of precipitation, as the consequences of glacial retreat are far reaching.”
How much more science is needed before the Republican presidential contenders pull their heads out of the sand and stop denying climate change? The truth is before us, the studies are reaching the same conclusions. The results are being found in the Americas, in Europe, in Asia. Denial of science is adequate grounds for any candidate for any office to lose my vote.
1 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings posting.
10 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
11 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
17 October 2011, FollowUp 3.
21 October 2011, FollowUp 4.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 6.
29 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
15 February 2012, FollowUp 8.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 March 2012, FollowUp 10.
11 March 2012, FollowUp 11.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 12.
26 October 2011
Praise: New Jersey It Gets Better
The It Gets Better Project is a creation of Dan Savage and tens of thousands of people in response to LGBTQ teen suicides. The project started just over a year ago, barely before Tyler Clementi's suicide in New Jersey, and already has about thirty thousand videos from notables all the way up to the President of the United States. While Mr. Obama and many other Democrats made videos and worked in other ways to help bullied youth, until this week Republicans had not participated.
The Huffington Post reports that two thirds of the New Jersey Congressional delegation have created an It Gets Better video that includes three of the five Republican Congressmen from New Jersey as well as five of the seven Democratic Congressmen and both Democratic Senators. Senator Frank Lautenberg spearheaded the group.
The three Republican Congressmen are quoted in the article:
"There is no place in our society for bullying, especially when continued bullying leads to young adults taking their own lives," Runyan told The Huffington Post. "This issue goes beyond political affiliations. An individual's teenage years can be very difficult and it is important for our nation's youth to understand that it gets better."
"The issue of bullying is not a partisan one, but a human one," said LoBiondo. "Bullying needs to be reported and prevented, especially in our schools. This project relays a critically-needed positive message to South Jersey and the nation's youth who are considering taking their own lives. Namely, that they should hold on because it does indeed get better. In my view, anything that saves a teen's life if worth doing."
"The bipartisan effort puts forth an important, positive message that is consistent with New Jersey's landmark anti-bullying initiative signed into law earlier this year by Gov. [Chris] Christie," added Angie Lundberg, a spokeswoman for Lance.
Kudos to Senator Lautenberg and the nine who joined him. Thank you.
The Huffington Post reports that two thirds of the New Jersey Congressional delegation have created an It Gets Better video that includes three of the five Republican Congressmen from New Jersey as well as five of the seven Democratic Congressmen and both Democratic Senators. Senator Frank Lautenberg spearheaded the group.
The three Republican Congressmen are quoted in the article:
"There is no place in our society for bullying, especially when continued bullying leads to young adults taking their own lives," Runyan told The Huffington Post. "This issue goes beyond political affiliations. An individual's teenage years can be very difficult and it is important for our nation's youth to understand that it gets better."
"The issue of bullying is not a partisan one, but a human one," said LoBiondo. "Bullying needs to be reported and prevented, especially in our schools. This project relays a critically-needed positive message to South Jersey and the nation's youth who are considering taking their own lives. Namely, that they should hold on because it does indeed get better. In my view, anything that saves a teen's life if worth doing."
"The bipartisan effort puts forth an important, positive message that is consistent with New Jersey's landmark anti-bullying initiative signed into law earlier this year by Gov. [Chris] Christie," added Angie Lundberg, a spokeswoman for Lance.
Kudos to Senator Lautenberg and the nine who joined him. Thank you.
25 October 2011
Repudiation: Jason Chaffetz Wants To Dispose of Wilderness
Representative Chaffetz (R), Utah, has proposed a bill titled: Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2011. According to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the idea is to sell off over three million acres across ten Western states. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington State are the ten. The specific lands to be sold are not specified in the legislation, but are expected to include wilderness areas, endangered species habitat, wetlands, and other pristine acreage.
It is ironic that it was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who was a significant proponent of conservation. One of his most lasting legacies was his significant role in the creation of 5 national parks, 18 national monuments, and 150 National Forests, among other works of conservation. Roosevelt was instrumental in conserving about 230 million acres (930,000 km2) of American soil among various parks and other federal projects.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, “While there are national treasures worthy of federal protection, there are lands that should be returned to private ownership,” Chaffetz said in introducing his legislation earlier this year. “If the land serves no public purpose and is ‘identified for disposal,’ let’s return it to private ownership.”
Incredibly obvious to anyone who has spent time in our National Forests or worked with the conservationists and environmentalists, empty land is not empty and does serve a public purpose. Teddy Roosevelt saw the value in setting aside lands for all time. Once developed, these lands would take decades, if not centuries, to restore. The birds and animals that reside in these lands would have their habitat destroyed. Land does not have to be built upon and industrialized to have value. Land is not disposable.
Some, perhaps most, of the sold land would undoubtedly be stripped of extant forests. This would exacerbate the ongoing climate change. This is the problem that Republicans continue to deny and hide facts that prove climate change is occurring. For our own sake, we must conserve the wild lands that remain.
Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.
Small update. Above, Mr. Chaffetz says "lands that should be returned to private ownership." As I was reminded by the commenters at Joe My God, those lands were never privately owned. Those lands never should be.
It is ironic that it was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who was a significant proponent of conservation. One of his most lasting legacies was his significant role in the creation of 5 national parks, 18 national monuments, and 150 National Forests, among other works of conservation. Roosevelt was instrumental in conserving about 230 million acres (930,000 km2) of American soil among various parks and other federal projects.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, “While there are national treasures worthy of federal protection, there are lands that should be returned to private ownership,” Chaffetz said in introducing his legislation earlier this year. “If the land serves no public purpose and is ‘identified for disposal,’ let’s return it to private ownership.”
Incredibly obvious to anyone who has spent time in our National Forests or worked with the conservationists and environmentalists, empty land is not empty and does serve a public purpose. Teddy Roosevelt saw the value in setting aside lands for all time. Once developed, these lands would take decades, if not centuries, to restore. The birds and animals that reside in these lands would have their habitat destroyed. Land does not have to be built upon and industrialized to have value. Land is not disposable.
Some, perhaps most, of the sold land would undoubtedly be stripped of extant forests. This would exacerbate the ongoing climate change. This is the problem that Republicans continue to deny and hide facts that prove climate change is occurring. For our own sake, we must conserve the wild lands that remain.
Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.
Small update. Above, Mr. Chaffetz says "lands that should be returned to private ownership." As I was reminded by the commenters at Joe My God, those lands were never privately owned. Those lands never should be.
Praise: All Children Matter Report
A report has just been published that looks in depth that the state of children in LGBTQ households. This report is co-authored by The Movement Advancement Project (MAP), www.lgbtmap.org, The Family Equality Council, www.familyequality.org, and The Center for American Progress, www.americanprogress.org.
The findings are both heartening and give cause for concern. From the key findings, I was surprised to learn that two million children are being raised in LGBTQ households. Despite the myth of most gays being rich, these households are twice as likely to be poor as straight households. In addition to being more diverse in terms of race and ancestry, the report indicates that LGBTQ households raising children exist in 96% of American counties. Far more spread out than I anticipated.
The kids are doing well. For this, I will quote the entire paragraph from the Executive Summary
Research uniformly shows positive outcomes for children in LGBT families. More than 30 years of rigorous social science research shows that children raised by LGBT parents are just as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. This is why every major authority on child health and welfare has determined that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent.
This is worth repeating: rigorous social science research shows that children raised by LGBT parents are just as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. This is exactly the opposite of the anti-equality propaganda.
The report raises concerns about that are not a surprise. We already knew that archaic and discriminatory laws, combined with social stigma, create obstacles to stable, loving homes; economic security; and health and well-being.
The full report details the legal and social challenges that LGBTQ families face. The report also has recommendations on what to do next, none of which should be a surprise. The following recommendations are what full equality would mean with specific details important for families with children.
Legally Recognize LGBT Families
1. Pass comprehensive parental recognition laws at the state level to fully protect children in LGBT families. State parentage and adoption statutes should allow joint adoption by LGBT parents, recognize LGBT parents using assisted reproduction in the same manner as heterosexual parents, and provide avenues such as second-parent adoption and de facto parenting to allow children to gain full legal ties to their parents.
2. Legalize and federally recognize marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for same-sex couples would help strengthen legal ties of the entire family, including those between a child’s parents and between the child and his or her parents. Married LGBT parents would be recognized as legal parents upon a child’s birth, and would also have access to joint and stepparent adoption. If recognized by the federal government, marriage would also allow accurate representation of LGBT families for the purposes of safety net programs, tax credits and deductions, inheritance and Social Security protections, immigration sponsorship and other benefits; and make it easier to obtain family health protections, including health insurance, medical decision-making, visitation and family leave.
3. Provide pathways to immigration and citizenship for binational LGBT families. This should include legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act, which would add the category “permanent partner” to the list of family members already entitled to sponsor a foreign national for U.S. immigration. Provide Equal Access to Government-Based Economic Protections
4. Recognize LGBT families and children across government safety net programs. Broadening the definition of “family” would allow LGBT families to accurately reflect their household across numerous government programs and protections. Forms and application procedures should also accommodate the reality of LGBT and other 21st century families.
5. Revise the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code to provide equitable treatment for LGBT families. The IRS should create a “permanent partner” designation to identify a person who would be treated as a spouse for tax code purposes. The IRS should allow not just legal parents but also de facto parents to claim a “qualifying child” on their tax filing.
6. Provide equitable economic protections when a parent dies or is disabled. First, broaden Social Security’s definition of family to allow an LGBT worker’s permanent partner and children to access survivor and disability benefits in the same manner as a heterosexual worker’s spouse and children. Next, states should change inheritance laws to treat LGBT permanent partners as spouses, and ensure children can inherit from a de facto parent when the parent dies without a will. Last, states should permit the filing of a wrongful death suit by any individual who can show economic dependence on a deceased person.
Provide Equal Access to Health Care
7. Advance equal access to health insurance and care. Pass laws ensuring that LGBT families have access to health insurance on equal terms with heterosexual families, including eliminating unfair taxation of these benefits. Encourage private employers to offer domestic partner benefits. Work to ensure the Affordable Care Act defines “family” broadly.
8. Enable LGBT family members to care for one another. Pass or revise state hospital visitation and medical decision-making laws to be inclusive of LGBT families and de facto parents. Work with hospitals and other medical facilities and providers to enact LGBT-friendly policies related to visitation, advanced healthcare directives and related issues. Revise the federal FMLA to allow same-sex partners to care for one another.
Protect LGBT Families with Anti-Discrimination Laws, Anti-Bullying Laws and Outreach
9. Pass state anti-bullying laws and laws barring discrimination in employment, adoption, custody and visitation, health services, housing and credit. Legislation prohibiting bullying and harassment in schools and universities should explicitly protect students based on their sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and association with LGBT people. Non-discrimination laws should include similar protections.
10. Expand education and cultural competency training on LGBT families. Education and cultural competency training for a wide array of professionals should include outreach to adoption agencies and child welfare departments, judges and law students, government agency workers, health service providers, schools, and faith communities.
Provide Education and Services Support to Help LGBT Families
11. Create stronger support services for LGBT families, particularly families of color, low-income families and transgender parents. Advocates should target LGBT families with focused outreach and services, including opportunities to participate in social and support groups. Advocates should also educate LGBT families about the need to establish parentage ties and other legal protections, and provide assistance in doing so.
Expand Research on LGBT Families
12. Expand research on LGBT families and parenting, with an emphasis on filling gaps in data on families of color, low-income families and transgender parents. This should include lobbying for expanded private and government research and data on LGBT families and parenting in areas such as demographics, income, health and mental health.
It should not need to be said, but none of these twelve recommendations do any harm to any heterosexual families. This is not a zero sum game. These recommendations would see a more stable society with better conditions for all our children.
At this time, I have skimmed the full, 134 page, report. (The quotes, above, are from the Executive Summary). The full report includes details of the differences in expenses between opposite sex headed households and same sex headed households, details of what might comprise a family, information on extant laws, workplace conditions, and education conditions. This looks like a great resource.
Thanks to the Huffington Post for the heads up.
The findings are both heartening and give cause for concern. From the key findings, I was surprised to learn that two million children are being raised in LGBTQ households. Despite the myth of most gays being rich, these households are twice as likely to be poor as straight households. In addition to being more diverse in terms of race and ancestry, the report indicates that LGBTQ households raising children exist in 96% of American counties. Far more spread out than I anticipated.
The kids are doing well. For this, I will quote the entire paragraph from the Executive Summary
Research uniformly shows positive outcomes for children in LGBT families. More than 30 years of rigorous social science research shows that children raised by LGBT parents are just as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. This is why every major authority on child health and welfare has determined that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent.
This is worth repeating: rigorous social science research shows that children raised by LGBT parents are just as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. This is exactly the opposite of the anti-equality propaganda.
The report raises concerns about that are not a surprise. We already knew that archaic and discriminatory laws, combined with social stigma, create obstacles to stable, loving homes; economic security; and health and well-being.
The full report details the legal and social challenges that LGBTQ families face. The report also has recommendations on what to do next, none of which should be a surprise. The following recommendations are what full equality would mean with specific details important for families with children.
Legally Recognize LGBT Families
1. Pass comprehensive parental recognition laws at the state level to fully protect children in LGBT families. State parentage and adoption statutes should allow joint adoption by LGBT parents, recognize LGBT parents using assisted reproduction in the same manner as heterosexual parents, and provide avenues such as second-parent adoption and de facto parenting to allow children to gain full legal ties to their parents.
2. Legalize and federally recognize marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for same-sex couples would help strengthen legal ties of the entire family, including those between a child’s parents and between the child and his or her parents. Married LGBT parents would be recognized as legal parents upon a child’s birth, and would also have access to joint and stepparent adoption. If recognized by the federal government, marriage would also allow accurate representation of LGBT families for the purposes of safety net programs, tax credits and deductions, inheritance and Social Security protections, immigration sponsorship and other benefits; and make it easier to obtain family health protections, including health insurance, medical decision-making, visitation and family leave.
3. Provide pathways to immigration and citizenship for binational LGBT families. This should include legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act, which would add the category “permanent partner” to the list of family members already entitled to sponsor a foreign national for U.S. immigration. Provide Equal Access to Government-Based Economic Protections
4. Recognize LGBT families and children across government safety net programs. Broadening the definition of “family” would allow LGBT families to accurately reflect their household across numerous government programs and protections. Forms and application procedures should also accommodate the reality of LGBT and other 21st century families.
5. Revise the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code to provide equitable treatment for LGBT families. The IRS should create a “permanent partner” designation to identify a person who would be treated as a spouse for tax code purposes. The IRS should allow not just legal parents but also de facto parents to claim a “qualifying child” on their tax filing.
6. Provide equitable economic protections when a parent dies or is disabled. First, broaden Social Security’s definition of family to allow an LGBT worker’s permanent partner and children to access survivor and disability benefits in the same manner as a heterosexual worker’s spouse and children. Next, states should change inheritance laws to treat LGBT permanent partners as spouses, and ensure children can inherit from a de facto parent when the parent dies without a will. Last, states should permit the filing of a wrongful death suit by any individual who can show economic dependence on a deceased person.
Provide Equal Access to Health Care
7. Advance equal access to health insurance and care. Pass laws ensuring that LGBT families have access to health insurance on equal terms with heterosexual families, including eliminating unfair taxation of these benefits. Encourage private employers to offer domestic partner benefits. Work to ensure the Affordable Care Act defines “family” broadly.
8. Enable LGBT family members to care for one another. Pass or revise state hospital visitation and medical decision-making laws to be inclusive of LGBT families and de facto parents. Work with hospitals and other medical facilities and providers to enact LGBT-friendly policies related to visitation, advanced healthcare directives and related issues. Revise the federal FMLA to allow same-sex partners to care for one another.
Protect LGBT Families with Anti-Discrimination Laws, Anti-Bullying Laws and Outreach
9. Pass state anti-bullying laws and laws barring discrimination in employment, adoption, custody and visitation, health services, housing and credit. Legislation prohibiting bullying and harassment in schools and universities should explicitly protect students based on their sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and association with LGBT people. Non-discrimination laws should include similar protections.
10. Expand education and cultural competency training on LGBT families. Education and cultural competency training for a wide array of professionals should include outreach to adoption agencies and child welfare departments, judges and law students, government agency workers, health service providers, schools, and faith communities.
Provide Education and Services Support to Help LGBT Families
11. Create stronger support services for LGBT families, particularly families of color, low-income families and transgender parents. Advocates should target LGBT families with focused outreach and services, including opportunities to participate in social and support groups. Advocates should also educate LGBT families about the need to establish parentage ties and other legal protections, and provide assistance in doing so.
Expand Research on LGBT Families
12. Expand research on LGBT families and parenting, with an emphasis on filling gaps in data on families of color, low-income families and transgender parents. This should include lobbying for expanded private and government research and data on LGBT families and parenting in areas such as demographics, income, health and mental health.
It should not need to be said, but none of these twelve recommendations do any harm to any heterosexual families. This is not a zero sum game. These recommendations would see a more stable society with better conditions for all our children.
At this time, I have skimmed the full, 134 page, report. (The quotes, above, are from the Executive Summary). The full report includes details of the differences in expenses between opposite sex headed households and same sex headed households, details of what might comprise a family, information on extant laws, workplace conditions, and education conditions. This looks like a great resource.
Thanks to the Huffington Post for the heads up.
24 October 2011
FollowUp 1: Speaker Boehner's Defense of DOMA
At the end of my first post on this topic, I included a link to an article in US News and World Report that was published on 20 October 2011. My purpose at that time was to highlight the cost of Mr. Boehner's legal team which had grown to at least one and a half million dollars. The article was about Representative Mike Honda (D) of California, who is concerned about this waste of taxpayer dollars.
Honda is calling for a hearing to address what he said is an "irresponsible, backdoor use of taxpayer money" on the part of House Republicans, who have agreed to increase the pay cap for an outside firm defending the law, as first reported by LGBTQ Nation.
"The speaker of the House has been on the job for 288 days and has not created a single job for the American people," Honda said in a statement Thursday. "Instead, the House Republican leadership wastes precious resources by putting the American taxpayers on the hook for a $1.5 million legal tab in defense of discrimination."
If it was not so apparent that DOMA is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, this might be worth discussing. There are two particular violations of the Constitution that I would highlight.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Since DOMA says that a same sex marriage that is entered into in one state need not be recognized by another state, it is in violation of Article 4, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Since DOMA does abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States, particularly the fundamental right to marry, it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
As usual, the hate groups are upset. This afternoon the National Organization for Marriage wrote on their blog
"John Boehner and the House are stepping in to do the job that President Obama refused to do." —Brian Brown, President of NOM
Washington, D.C. — In response to Democratic Rep. Mike Honda of California's calls for hearings on the cost of the House's defense of DOMA, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released this statement:
The problem with Speaker Boehner defending DOMA is less about the specific amount of money than it is about the defense of DOMA being a waste of taxpayer money. Defending a law that is blatantly unconstitutional is wrong. Defending a law that is unconstitutional and deprives a minority group of equal rights is despicable.
Thanks to Holy Bullies and Headless Gods for the heads up. The linked article there is worth reading for more background on some of the lies behind the defense of DOMA.
20 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post
Honda is calling for a hearing to address what he said is an "irresponsible, backdoor use of taxpayer money" on the part of House Republicans, who have agreed to increase the pay cap for an outside firm defending the law, as first reported by LGBTQ Nation.
"The speaker of the House has been on the job for 288 days and has not created a single job for the American people," Honda said in a statement Thursday. "Instead, the House Republican leadership wastes precious resources by putting the American taxpayers on the hook for a $1.5 million legal tab in defense of discrimination."
If it was not so apparent that DOMA is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, this might be worth discussing. There are two particular violations of the Constitution that I would highlight.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Since DOMA says that a same sex marriage that is entered into in one state need not be recognized by another state, it is in violation of Article 4, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Since DOMA does abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States, particularly the fundamental right to marry, it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
As usual, the hate groups are upset. This afternoon the National Organization for Marriage wrote on their blog
"John Boehner and the House are stepping in to do the job that President Obama refused to do." —Brian Brown, President of NOM
Washington, D.C. — In response to Democratic Rep. Mike Honda of California's calls for hearings on the cost of the House's defense of DOMA, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released this statement:
"John Boehner and the House are stepping in to do the job that President Obama refused to do: defend a law passed by bipartisan majorities. The cost of hiring lawyers to defend DOMA should be deducted from the budget of the Justice Department," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "The $1.5 million cost of defending DOMA represent less than one-one hundredth of one percent of the Justice Department's huge $28 billion budget. President Obama's defection of duty is responsible for incurring this cost; he should trim some fat and find the money to pay for it."
The problem with Speaker Boehner defending DOMA is less about the specific amount of money than it is about the defense of DOMA being a waste of taxpayer money. Defending a law that is blatantly unconstitutional is wrong. Defending a law that is unconstitutional and deprives a minority group of equal rights is despicable.
Thanks to Holy Bullies and Headless Gods for the heads up. The linked article there is worth reading for more background on some of the lies behind the defense of DOMA.
20 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post
Praise: Progressive Religious Groups
It is common among many LGBTQ bloggers to denigrate religion. Certainly those religious groups who continually call for the restriction of rights of those who are not even members of their faith are earning reciprocal animosity. However, just as it is not right for hate groups to link the LGBTQ community with Nazis or pedophiles, it is not right to link religious organizations that focus on love and accepting communities with those who preach separation and violence.
This morning's news on MSNBC included an article, Battling for Gay Rights, In Allah's Name, that caught my eye. There has been so much fear and hate of Islam since the attack on the United States on 11 September 2001 and since there has been so much publicity of gays being tortured or killed in Islamic countries, like Iran, that I was surprised at first reading the title.
So, I decided to put together a list of all the religious organizations that I can find links for on the Internet that welcome members of the LGBTQ community. Not those that preach hate but say that they welcome all, particularly those who are interested in changing their sinful ways, but those who are accepting and loving as, if there is a God, I believe that God must be. The list is undoubtedly incomplete (please e-mail or leave a comment with corrections and additions), and is mostly limited to English-speaking North America. No joke religions (sexual organizations with a pretense of religion) are included.
Christian
Baptist, The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Baptist, Rainbow Baptists
Christian Scientist, Emergence International
Community of Christ, GALA (Gay and Lesbian Acceptance)
Eastern Orthodox, Axios
Ecumenical Catholic, The Ecumenical Catholic Church
Episcopalian, The Episcopal Church
Episcopalian, Integrity
Evangelical, Evangelicals ConcernedGay Christian Network
Hope for Peace and Justice
International Christian Community Churches
Latter Day Saints, Affirmation Gay & Lesbian Mormons
Latter Day Saints, The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ
Lutheran, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Lutheran, Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries
Lutheran, Lutheran's Concerned/North America
Lutheran, Lutheran Lesbian and Gay Ministries
Methodist, United Methodist Reconciling Ministries
Metropolitan Community Churches
No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice
Pacific School of Religion
Pentacostal, The Affirming Pentacostal Church
Pentacostal, Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentacostals
Presbyterian, Presbyterian Church
Presbyterian, Presbyterian Voices for Justice
Quaker, American Friends Service Committee
Quaker, Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns
Quaker, Friends General Conference
Roman Catholic, Catholics United
Roman Catholic, Dignity USA
Roman Catholic, Fortunate Families
Roman Catholic, New Ways Ministry
Seventh-Day Adventist, Seventh-Day Adventist Kinship
Unitarian, The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
The United Church of Canada
United Church of Christ
The Witness (feminist)
Islamic
Imaan (British)
Muslims for Progressive Values
Jewish
Conservative Judaism, Keshet (also called Jewish Mosaic)
Gay Gevalt
Havruta
Humanistic Judaism, Society for Humanistic Judaism
Institute for Judaism and Sexual Orientation
Nehirim
Orthodox Judaism, Bat-Kol
Orthodox Judaism, Hod
Progressive Jewish Alliance
Reconstructionist Judaism, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
Reform Judaism, Union for Reform Judaism
Other Religions
Buddhist, Soka, Gakkai
NeoPagan, Radical Faeries
Wiccan, McFarland (Old) Dianic
Interfaith / Multifaith
Allies Gather
The Interfaith Alliance
The Network of Spiritual Progressives
The Religious Institute
Soul Force
The sources for this list are The Liberty Education Forum, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and Wikipedia, and I hope to have additions and corrections from you.
This morning's news on MSNBC included an article, Battling for Gay Rights, In Allah's Name, that caught my eye. There has been so much fear and hate of Islam since the attack on the United States on 11 September 2001 and since there has been so much publicity of gays being tortured or killed in Islamic countries, like Iran, that I was surprised at first reading the title.
So, I decided to put together a list of all the religious organizations that I can find links for on the Internet that welcome members of the LGBTQ community. Not those that preach hate but say that they welcome all, particularly those who are interested in changing their sinful ways, but those who are accepting and loving as, if there is a God, I believe that God must be. The list is undoubtedly incomplete (please e-mail or leave a comment with corrections and additions), and is mostly limited to English-speaking North America. No joke religions (sexual organizations with a pretense of religion) are included.
Christian
Baptist, The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Baptist, Rainbow Baptists
Christian Scientist, Emergence International
Community of Christ, GALA (Gay and Lesbian Acceptance)
Eastern Orthodox, Axios
Ecumenical Catholic, The Ecumenical Catholic Church
Episcopalian, The Episcopal Church
Episcopalian, Integrity
Evangelical, Evangelicals ConcernedGay Christian Network
Hope for Peace and Justice
International Christian Community Churches
Latter Day Saints, Affirmation Gay & Lesbian Mormons
Latter Day Saints, The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ
Lutheran, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Lutheran, Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries
Lutheran, Lutheran's Concerned/North America
Lutheran, Lutheran Lesbian and Gay Ministries
Methodist, United Methodist Reconciling Ministries
Metropolitan Community Churches
No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice
Pacific School of Religion
Pentacostal, The Affirming Pentacostal Church
Pentacostal, Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentacostals
Presbyterian, Presbyterian Church
Presbyterian, Presbyterian Voices for Justice
Quaker, American Friends Service Committee
Quaker, Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns
Quaker, Friends General Conference
Roman Catholic, Catholics United
Roman Catholic, Dignity USA
Roman Catholic, Fortunate Families
Roman Catholic, New Ways Ministry
Seventh-Day Adventist, Seventh-Day Adventist Kinship
Unitarian, The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
The United Church of Canada
United Church of Christ
The Witness (feminist)
Islamic
Imaan (British)
Muslims for Progressive Values
Jewish
Conservative Judaism, Keshet (also called Jewish Mosaic)
Gay Gevalt
Havruta
Humanistic Judaism, Society for Humanistic Judaism
Institute for Judaism and Sexual Orientation
Nehirim
Orthodox Judaism, Bat-Kol
Orthodox Judaism, Hod
Progressive Jewish Alliance
Reconstructionist Judaism, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
Reform Judaism, Union for Reform Judaism
Other Religions
Buddhist, Soka, Gakkai
NeoPagan, Radical Faeries
Wiccan, McFarland (Old) Dianic
Interfaith / Multifaith
Allies Gather
The Interfaith Alliance
The Network of Spiritual Progressives
The Religious Institute
Soul Force
The sources for this list are The Liberty Education Forum, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and Wikipedia, and I hope to have additions and corrections from you.
23 October 2011
FollowUp 1: California's SB-48
Among the smaller hate groups is one with the pretentious banner Public Advocate of the United States. This operation is run by a Loudoun County, Virginia member of the County Board of Supervisors, Eugene Delgaudio. Warning: if you fill out anything for them, you will be on their mailing list. The nonsense from this operation does not seem to stop.
The next to last e-mail that I received from them, on the 20th of October, is a condemnation of California's SB-48. They never mention the law by name, but it will be obvious as we go through what Mr. Delgaudio had to say.
Dear Some,
The Homosexual Agenda will soon victimize the next generation of LA school children .
Outrageous, but it's true.
The Los Angeles Unified School District has decided to impose a curriculum of pro-homosexual indoctrination.
This Homosexual Education will remake every classroom to be more "tolerant and open."
Students will be brainwashed into believing homosexual lifestyles are moral and correct .
The decision to enact SB-48 was made on the state level, not at the local level. There is no indoctrination. Please look at the law yourself. Yes, classrooms should and will be more tolerant and open. There is no brainwashing. Many groups are to be considered without discrimination. Groups that must be included in social studies in California now include "men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups. Instructional materials and activities "must not reflect adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation".
History courses will be rewritten to force in Homosexual and even transgender "role models."
Force in? No. Include, yes. When an individual has done great or horrific things, things worthy of note in a social studies text, that should be included. If they have done great things and are not heterosexual, that is part of who they are and should be included. Doing so does increase acceptance of LGBTQ persons as normal, but does not change who the students are. Good people should be considered as role models without regard to their gender or sexual orientation or gender identification.
Even elementary school children will be forced to learn new "lessons" in favor of homosexuality -- all the way down to kindergarten .
Children that age should never be exposed to these disgusting sex acts. They will be permanently scarred!
Okay, this is an outright lie. Mr. Delgaudio has obviously not read the law. No child at any level of public school is to be "exposed to ... sex acts". It is not going to happen.
And as horrible as this all is, it gets worse.
Not only will students be subjected to Homosexual Education, but they will have to undergo "training."
In fact, parents, teachers and students are all going to be "trained" by the school district to buy into radical homosexual ideology !
No. This is another outright lie. One needs only read the law and it is obvious that Mr. Delgaudio is a liar.
They are attacking Pro-Family Americans in every corner of our country.
No. Learning complete history, including that of minority groups like the LGBTQ community, is not an attack on anyone. To understand the kind of lie that Mr. Delgaudio is telling here, please see my series on Discrimination Upside Down.
The letter from this so-called public advocate goes on to claim that they are the only organization that will protect your children from the threat of the homosexuals and then to ask for money. They are far from alone. The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks many proven hate groups.
A more recent e-mail from Mr. Delgaudio, on the 22nd, is a rant against a campaign to have Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie wed. The producers of Sesame Street said no last month. Part of that letter included
They claim that if only Bert and Ernie were allowed to marry it would help put an end to bullying and end the suicides of LGBT youth.
The reality is the Homosexual Lobby wants access to your children and they want them while they're young.
Yes, the LGBTQ community wants access to your children, to help them accept each other and themselves for what they are and who they are. By teaching acceptance and tolerance, as required in California, we can reduce bullying and suicides (I doubt these can be completely ended, but reduction would be good). The cries of indoctrination make it sound as if being homosexual were contagious. Enough of the lies. We now need more states to follow the lead of California's SB-48.
12 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
28 November 2011, FollowUp 2.
9 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
28 January 2012, FollowUp 4.
The next to last e-mail that I received from them, on the 20th of October, is a condemnation of California's SB-48. They never mention the law by name, but it will be obvious as we go through what Mr. Delgaudio had to say.
Dear Some,
The Homosexual Agenda will soon victimize the next generation of LA school children .
Outrageous, but it's true.
The Los Angeles Unified School District has decided to impose a curriculum of pro-homosexual indoctrination.
This Homosexual Education will remake every classroom to be more "tolerant and open."
Students will be brainwashed into believing homosexual lifestyles are moral and correct .
The decision to enact SB-48 was made on the state level, not at the local level. There is no indoctrination. Please look at the law yourself. Yes, classrooms should and will be more tolerant and open. There is no brainwashing. Many groups are to be considered without discrimination. Groups that must be included in social studies in California now include "men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups. Instructional materials and activities "must not reflect adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation".
History courses will be rewritten to force in Homosexual and even transgender "role models."
Force in? No. Include, yes. When an individual has done great or horrific things, things worthy of note in a social studies text, that should be included. If they have done great things and are not heterosexual, that is part of who they are and should be included. Doing so does increase acceptance of LGBTQ persons as normal, but does not change who the students are. Good people should be considered as role models without regard to their gender or sexual orientation or gender identification.
Even elementary school children will be forced to learn new "lessons" in favor of homosexuality -- all the way down to kindergarten .
Children that age should never be exposed to these disgusting sex acts. They will be permanently scarred!
Okay, this is an outright lie. Mr. Delgaudio has obviously not read the law. No child at any level of public school is to be "exposed to ... sex acts". It is not going to happen.
And as horrible as this all is, it gets worse.
Not only will students be subjected to Homosexual Education, but they will have to undergo "training."
In fact, parents, teachers and students are all going to be "trained" by the school district to buy into radical homosexual ideology !
No. This is another outright lie. One needs only read the law and it is obvious that Mr. Delgaudio is a liar.
They are attacking Pro-Family Americans in every corner of our country.
No. Learning complete history, including that of minority groups like the LGBTQ community, is not an attack on anyone. To understand the kind of lie that Mr. Delgaudio is telling here, please see my series on Discrimination Upside Down.
The letter from this so-called public advocate goes on to claim that they are the only organization that will protect your children from the threat of the homosexuals and then to ask for money. They are far from alone. The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks many proven hate groups.
A more recent e-mail from Mr. Delgaudio, on the 22nd, is a rant against a campaign to have Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie wed. The producers of Sesame Street said no last month. Part of that letter included
They claim that if only Bert and Ernie were allowed to marry it would help put an end to bullying and end the suicides of LGBT youth.
The reality is the Homosexual Lobby wants access to your children and they want them while they're young.
Yes, the LGBTQ community wants access to your children, to help them accept each other and themselves for what they are and who they are. By teaching acceptance and tolerance, as required in California, we can reduce bullying and suicides (I doubt these can be completely ended, but reduction would be good). The cries of indoctrination make it sound as if being homosexual were contagious. Enough of the lies. We now need more states to follow the lead of California's SB-48.
12 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
28 November 2011, FollowUp 2.
9 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
28 January 2012, FollowUp 4.
Repudiation: LGBTQ Closeted Homophobes
While the current impetus for this blog entry is a particular person, the problem goes far beyond any individual and needs to be addressed on a greater scale. I don't know if the Mayor of Medford, New Jersey is gay and really don't care about him one way or the other. He is, sadly, in the news with an allegation of having paid for gay sex while traveling in California. While I, personally, find prostitution distasteful, it is not my intent to get into the politics of it.
This is important because the Mayor is another in a long string of Republicans, the political party that endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and has been working to prevent equality for the LGBTQ community for ages, who turns out to be gay. When I looked for information about the Mayor, I saw that he is pro-life, but did not find his personal stand on LGBTQ issues. That his party opposes equality does not guarantee that he does. As I started writing, this is the impetus for a bigger discussion.
The Gay Homophobe is a website that documents a dozen Republicans and many clergy who actively worked to harm gays and turned out to be gay. This phenomenon did not start in 2004, but that is the starting point for that documentation. Why? There are many whys that should be considered.
Why are these men in the closet? They are in the closet because it was politically necessary to appear to be heterosexual if one sought elected office. Any human is physically capable of sexual acts that are not pleasant to them, and so it has been for these men. Better to hold one's nose and win the coveted government position than to face the ridicule that goes with being known as a faggot.
Why do these men stay in the closet once they are successful as politicians? Politicians never stop running for office. The facade must stay in place or they fear that they will be looking for work. In fact, for most Republican gay homophobes, this is true.
Why, once in office, do these men attempt to pass laws to limit the rights of gays and lesbians? They fear being found out so much that they foolishly believe that they can more easily hide if they appear to be virulently opposed to what they really are. The list at the Gay Homophobe gives the lie to this harmful endeavor.
So now that they have gone to so much effort to hide their sexual orientation, why would they risk throwing away their facade families, their political careers, and their public image for encounters with a rentboy? Sexual urges, whatever one's sexual orientation, are strong. Repressed urges are even stronger than those expressed. I would have sympathy for these men, go through so much personal pain, if they were not inflicting harm upon others in the process.
So long as the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage, and the rest (see my groups page and look under hate groups) and religions like Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism continue to create an environment of animosity and fear, I expect the list on the Gay Homophobe will continue to grow.
This is important because the Mayor is another in a long string of Republicans, the political party that endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and has been working to prevent equality for the LGBTQ community for ages, who turns out to be gay. When I looked for information about the Mayor, I saw that he is pro-life, but did not find his personal stand on LGBTQ issues. That his party opposes equality does not guarantee that he does. As I started writing, this is the impetus for a bigger discussion.
The Gay Homophobe is a website that documents a dozen Republicans and many clergy who actively worked to harm gays and turned out to be gay. This phenomenon did not start in 2004, but that is the starting point for that documentation. Why? There are many whys that should be considered.
Why are these men in the closet? They are in the closet because it was politically necessary to appear to be heterosexual if one sought elected office. Any human is physically capable of sexual acts that are not pleasant to them, and so it has been for these men. Better to hold one's nose and win the coveted government position than to face the ridicule that goes with being known as a faggot.
Why do these men stay in the closet once they are successful as politicians? Politicians never stop running for office. The facade must stay in place or they fear that they will be looking for work. In fact, for most Republican gay homophobes, this is true.
Why, once in office, do these men attempt to pass laws to limit the rights of gays and lesbians? They fear being found out so much that they foolishly believe that they can more easily hide if they appear to be virulently opposed to what they really are. The list at the Gay Homophobe gives the lie to this harmful endeavor.
So now that they have gone to so much effort to hide their sexual orientation, why would they risk throwing away their facade families, their political careers, and their public image for encounters with a rentboy? Sexual urges, whatever one's sexual orientation, are strong. Repressed urges are even stronger than those expressed. I would have sympathy for these men, go through so much personal pain, if they were not inflicting harm upon others in the process.
So long as the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage, and the rest (see my groups page and look under hate groups) and religions like Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism continue to create an environment of animosity and fear, I expect the list on the Gay Homophobe will continue to grow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)