The Gay Fray

If you look at evolution, life began as single cells that could reproduce; bacteria. The next milestone, divided the genes of the DNA into separated male and female cells. This schema stuck and progressed quickly, because it allowed more genetic diversity, speeding up evolution. The bible sticks to there two reproduction schemes when it comes to sex; celibacy or male-female. It is trying to stick to fundamental nature.

The fundamental reason sex evolved in nature, was for genetic diversity in offspring. Sex did not evolve so there is a reason to buy flowers, or to have something to do after the movies. That type of thinking puts the cart before the horse and tends to be irrational in origin.

Because sex is so critical to evolution, nature created carrots on the string, to make sure sex and reproduction occurs. These carrots are desires. If one is shallow, the carrot on the string is as deep as you go. Shallow may not be able to sense the fundamental core of things.

Because of shallow thinking, the tactic is like a woman asking if she looks fat in that dress, with the lie preferred before the truth. If she was thinking in terms of her core this would not be a concern, nor would she need constant validation. Bu the surface of things has become her core.

The church is like the husband that tells the truth, that she looks somewhat fat in that dress, and needs to work out. This puts him in the dog house, because this is not what she wanted to her; needed sweet little lies. The best strategy for a shallow wife who needs validation, but has a husband that will not lie, is to ask questions where the truth gives validation. One should stay away from fat in the dress until you work out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sounds like the Catholic dogma that you should only have sex to have a baby. Is that what you're saying?No contraception? No masturbation? No oral sex? Never any recreational sex at all? That's going to come as bad news to 99% of the human race! lol!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's unsettling that this madman has a nation-wide televised pulpit. What are the limits to what lunacy can be spued on TV? Shall we have the Bigotry Channel next all in the name of freespeech? Who sponsors this sort of crap? Donations from little old ladies barely living on their social security?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah. There really isn't much to say↱ about that one.

But, hey, my link includes a picture of God Bug.

 

Obama Delivers: LGBT Protections for Federal Contract Employees

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Flashback: June, 2014:

Unlike Obama's support for same-sex marriage and lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay troops, the White House's work to promote transgender rights has happened mostly out of the spotlight.

Some advances have gone unnoticed because they also benefited the much larger gay, lesbian and bisexual communities. That was the case Monday when the White House announced that Obama plans to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In other instances, transgender rights groups and the administration have agreed on a low-key approach, both to skirt resistance and to send the message that changes are not a big deal, said Barbra Siperstein, who in 2009 became the first transgender person elected to the Democratic National Committee.

"It's quiet by design, because the louder you are in Washington, the more the drama," said Siperstein, who helped organize the first meeting between White House aides and transgender rights advocates without the participation of gay rights leaders.

(Associated Press↱; boldface accent added)​

And then there is ... today:

For the first time, companies that have contracts with the federal government are now prohibited from firing or discriminating against employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, thanks to an executive order that takes effect Wednesday.

President Barack Obama signed the order in June 2014 banning workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of federal contractors and the federal government. The administration took the last six months to provide rules to contractors, and to give companies time to put processes in place. The change affects 24,000 companies employing roughly 28 million workers, or about one-fifth of the nation's workforce.

(Bendery↱)​

Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Without fanfare, Obama advances transgender rights". CBS News. 22 June 2014. CBSNews.com. 8 April 2015. http://cbsn.ws/1FhO2sf

Bendery, Jennifer. "It Is Now Illegal For A Federal Contractor To Fire Someone For Being LGBT". The Huffington Post. 8 April 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 8 April 2015. http://huff.to/1y5cw5i

 

Obama Steps Up: White House Calls for End to Conversion Therapy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

The White House has issued a statement backing Leelah's Law. A petition through the We the People↱ web page at WhiteHouse.gov gathered over 120,000 signatures. The statement, authored by Valerie Jarrett, begins:

"Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let's say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he's held as long as he can remember. Soon, perhaps, he will decide it's time to let that secret out. What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community. But it also depends on us―on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build."

―President Barack Obama​

Thank you for taking the time to sign on to this petition in support of banning the practice known as conversion therapy.

Conversion therapy generally refers to any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. Often, this practice is used on minors, who lack the legal authority to make their own medical and mental health decisions. We share your concern about its potentially devastating effects on the lives of transgender as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer youth.

When assessing the validity of conversion therapy, or other practices that seek to change an individual's gender identity or sexual orientation, it is as imperative to seek guidance from certified medical experts. The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm.

As part of our dedication to protecting America's youth, this Administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors.​

Now, the hard part, which is convincing Congress to actually try.

To the other, social conservatives might well decide that now they have something to rally 'round headng into the 2016 election. Let us hope they maintain their own dignity instead of hounding the human dignity of LGBT minors. We can certainly expect the fight will be rough, but it is long overdue, and there is only one possible outcome.

Stand. Speak. Fight. Win.

Love.

Live.

Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________

Notes:

Jarrett, Valerie. "Response to Your Petition on Conversion Therapy". The White House. 8 April 2015. Petitions.WhiteHouse.gov. 8 April 2015. http://1.usa.gov/1FoCRZz

 

The fundamental reason feathers evolved was to keep baby dinosaurs warm.

So birds shouldn't fly?

 

Setting our neighbor's excremental hatred aside, I would point out that feathers aren't the only adaptation; in the end, we might suggest that the fundamental reason "birds" came about was to continue a genetic lineage.

Birds are nature's way of improving dinosaurs.

Homosexuals are obviously not the next step for the human species in toto. To the other, there is a reason the Universe insists homosexuality and homosexuals should exist.

It's one of the strange things about this fight. For the faithful, the question of why God would bless the conception and birth of a homosexual, why God's Will is that homosexuals should exist, remains unresolved; the best they can come up with is sadism, that it is a temptation, essentially a torture, one must overcome in order to be satisfactory unto Him who deliberately created what He finds unsatisfactory.

And while a more atheistic assertion of abstract moral duty or whatever the hell it is that might justify homophobia is considerably less common, the fundamental question remains: Why would this occur in nature?

Nature insists. God wills. Call it what we might, but the point remains: This happens for a reason. And that reason can be as simple as, this is how it goes. But a theistic argument against homosexuals inherently doubts God's will. A nontheistic argument must necessarily misrepresent evolution.

What was the fundamental reason speech evolved?

Was it really so that humans can express their psychiatric frailty?

By our neighbor's argument, and acknowledging your point about avian sin and perversion, it would seem that humans should not express hatred.

Then again, that's the challenge about aesthetics as a moral assertion; these people don't seem to be thinking through the implications of their own arguments.

With American Christians, for instance, this is an expected outcome; it is part of the code distinguishing the religion generally known as Christianity. They are to live in child-like faith, so it is easy to see how large gaps might open up in their critical-thinking structures.

And while by custom we are expected to excuse, and on many occasions even go so far as to praise, this imposed naïveté―functionally, in our society, a result of sheltering supremacism under a jealous and nearly anarchic assertion of religious freedom―nontheistic arguments don't have that grace. They are, by their own assertion, intended to be rational.

Our neighbor provides an excellent example of what happens when one asserts an allegedly rational argument without thinking through the implications. There is exactly nothing going on in the Universe that would suggest the human experience is so fragmented that such considerations as he offers can be contained within the customized boundaries he might expect but is unwilling and―by the very nature of rationality―inherently unable to establish.

In the end, what our neighbor shows is nothing more than the pathetic hatred by which humanity has historically abused itself.

These people need therapeutic help. Stupid and terrible is no way to go through life.

 

For the sake of argument, we assume homosexuality was natural. Opposing homosexuality would also be natural, since this would a way to create a balance of instinctive imperatives. The former would be based on survival of the individual; being true to one's nature. While the latter is based on survival of the species. The mother animal protecting her young balances the needs of the future of species, reflected as her baby, versus her own survival needs.

In other words, if we all decided to become homosexual, with no sexual interest in the opposite sex, humans would go extinct in about 100 years. The impending threat of extinction, would create an instinctive backlash, connected to the survival of the species; the mother will protect the children at her own risk. A backlash would help restore a balance.

The liberal dual standard tends to side with one of the two options, allowing individual choice, without regard to the needs of the survival of the species. This dual standard perpetuates a backlash, because the balance is artificially being induced to far to the left. There are more try-sexuals than there would be under a state of balance; too many faux homosexuals. These have a higher rate of attrition.

If you look at animals, and what appears to be homosexual behavior, this is mostly done as foreplay, dominance or rape. When males dogs try to hump each other, it is for dominance, not love. The bottom dog is rarely a willing participant, unless he feels dominated. But even at that, there is no final coitus. It is more social hierarchy theatrics. Dogs have crested a balance between the needs of the individual and the species. I would guess those who instinctively opposite all homosexual behavior, sense this line has been crossed.

The POV of religion is, if homosexual sex was off the table, there would be no complaint. More often than not, the homosexual person and their personality, beyond sex, are consistent with good character and behavior. I have had many gay and lesbian friends who are outstanding people. If we assume one has sex 1 hour per day, every day, that is still only about 5% of the person. There is no beef with the other 95% of the person. This does not cross any instinctive line. The social problem is connected to the 5% being waived as a flag, so it appears like 95%. This is a democratic tactic used to divide people ; mutual overreaction, so they can get a block vote.

In the Military service, it was don't ask and don't tell, for many years. Most people don't pry into the intimacy of others. We tend to deal with the 95% of the person in jobs. But the democrats needed to change this to ask and tell so the 5% can be magnified creating division, backlash and a voting block, who seeks dual standard protection

My solution is to put away the flag so the proportion of 5% can seen. There will still be some backlash but a fraction of the what the flag creates.

 

What the fuck are you talking about? The human race is in no danger of extinction from homosexuality and never has been. Protection of minorities is not a dual standard.

Anyway, overpopulation is now a more immediate threat to society than extinction. A rational social response would be to encourage more homosexuality. Too bad getting a heterosexual to be attracted to the same sex is virtually impossible.

 

Problem is you don't get to stand over gay people like some mad surgeon deciding what parts to cut out of them and what parts to retain. Everybody has the right to their own sexuality. It makes up a large part of who we are as persons, and determines who we love and decide to spend our lives with. Being free to love and express that love freely to the person of your choosing is a fundamental right of all people. It's simply monstrous to suggest removing natural biologically-ingrained parts of people you don't personally approve of.

I was in the military for 9 years under DADT. I had to totally repress my orientation from being discovered. Others were allowed to talk freely about their wives or girlfriends or adventures in bed, but when it came to me, enforced silence. Like I was supposed to be some sort of monk. No, being in love was forbidden territory for me, adding to years of anxiety and depression while trying to fulfill my duties as an American serviceman. Then there were the sarcastic innuendos, and knowing smirks, about what I was and had to keep hiding. It's a form of oppression I wouldn't wish on anyone. But I endured it, for 9 years at least. To suggest the military go back to that inhuman policy, of making certain members live a lie and stay in the closet, is hateful and bigoted. There is no division in being allowed to be who you are without fear of condemnation or punishment. The improvement that comes to your life benefits everyone around you, including the military itself.

 

A good assumption; reality is always a safe assumption.

Potsherd.

Potsherd.

Overpopulation presents a greater threat to the species than the natural occurrence of homosexuality. Indeed, were homosexuality so detrimental to the species, the trait would eventually select out; yet nature continues to create homosexuals, or, to put it in religious terms, God still blesses the conception and birth of homosexuals, and wills that they should exist.

Laughably irrelevant.

It is called "The↱ Choicer↱ Challenge↱".

It's quite the fantasy. Why is cruelty so important that people must invent fantasies like this in order to justify it as a virtue?

The "liberal dual standard" is thus revealed as exactly what it is, a bigoted delusion.

Yeah, we know that the backlash is justified by a delusion. That much has been apparent for a while.

When you look at what appears to be heterosexual behavior, it is mostly done as foreplay, dominance, or rape.

And when gay penguins settle into routine domesticity as life partners?

You do recognize the ethical question your argument presents?

Okay, this is how it goes: Dude is spending that much effort thinking about dogs fucking.

Now, do we get to laugh, or is this significant of something else? To wit:

• Dude gets really, really drunk, for some reason ends up whipping it out in front of everybody, yes, we get to laugh and give him all manner of shit down the road. ("Dude, remember that time ...?")

• We do not, however, get to laugh when the developmentally impaired person is whipping it out because he doesn't know any better.

• Here's the catch: If Dude who got really drunk and whipped it out says, "Yeah, and I think I have a drinking problem", then at that point we all stop laughing and either help or get the fuck out of the way.​

See how this works? We don't get to laugh at that sort of impairment. It has to do with human dignity, a notion we're all aware you have little care for.

So the question becomes whether we get to laugh at how stupid you're being, or whether that appearance of stupidity is significant of some manner of impairment that is beyond your control.

No, they spend too much time thinking about homosexuals and homosexuality.

The point of view of religion is based on a fantasy. It is an artifical construct. You overlook the fact that even if God exists as something more than simply the way things are, It is still ineffable. How we frail, finite humans shape our notions of God is more significant to our daily lives, communities, societies, and general human endeavor than God Itself.

What is striking to me about how much time and effort homophobes put into dwelling on gay sex is that it still sounds and reads like gibberish that exists merely to give a person a pretense of a reason to talk about gay sex.

Little over twenty, and never sincerely.

To the other, one of the things your point specifically overlooks is a longstanding social custom by which heterosexual men would of their relations with women. It's a quieter phenomenon these days because the culture is, indeed dynamic, and in my own generational cohort it has been interesting to watch how men have adjusted to parenthood, because it's true, having a mother, or having a sister, doesn't seem to have rung our bells about how men in general treat women in general within our society. And while there is obvservably a range of reaction and response and adjustment, there are significant numbers in which certain forms of sexism persist such that many of us, when we encounter it, think, "Dude, you have a daughter." And in many cases the question simply comes down to whether one actually needs to say that to the person or not. But generally coinciding with my generation's increased paternal engagement in daily parental and domestic affairs is an increasing, "Dude, not cool," reaction to certain forms of sexism.

But, for instance, I was born under Nixon; talk about a bad sign. The period in which I grew up is one in which a backlash against equal rights for women―also framed as an extinction paranoia in a significant range of the societal discourses―and our role models pretty much swam easily and blissfully in a sea of presupposing misogyny.

My point being that when you say, "Most people don't pry into the intimacy of others", you are overlooking the amount men would talk about who they bedded, and in that context even "Don't ask, don't tell", was a one-way street. Before Clinton signed that compromise, the military was actively hunting for homosexuals in its ranks. And even after, when they ostensibly weren't, it turns out they were.

The strange thing about your sort of posts is that they are based on a series of presuppositions that are exactly the opposite of reality, and you make no effort to support such extraordinary claims. Rather, you present these bizarre constructions by which bigotry somehow becomes noble necessity. And your reliance on curiously awful dwellings on sexual behavior is just ... well, it says more about you than homosexuals, dogs, or rapists. It isn't so much a thin pretense you offer for drawing these issues into a common realm, but rather the amount of effort required; this is significant of something. It's just an unsettling prospect, trying to figure out just what.
____________________

Notes:

Savage, Dan. "The Choicer Challenge". The Stranger. 25 May 2011. TheStranger.com. 10 April 2015. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=8308624

—————. "Herman Cain, Choicer". Slog. 20 October 2011. Slog.TheStranger.com. 10 April 2015. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/20/herman-cain-choicer

—————. "Ben Carson: Being Gay Is a Choice and Prison Proves It". Slog. 4 March 2015. TheStranger.com. 10 April 2015. http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/sl...ot-being-gay-is-a-choice-and-prison-proves-it

 

Taylor Alesena (d. 2 April 2015)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

JamesMichael Nichols↱ brings us the terrible news from California:

A 16-year-old transgender teen and YouTube personality has died after allegedly being subjected to intense bullying at the hands of her classmates.

Taylor Alesena made a name for herself on YouTube talking about her experiences with bullying and the loneliness she experienced at the hands of her peers. Now, the transgender teen has reportedly taken her own life, according to ABC 10 News.​

This just can't keep happening.

There are certain people in this world―and our own Sciforums community―to whom I can only say I hope you're fucking happy.

Take what joy you can in other people's suffering.

This is, after all, what you want.

And it is about to come to an end.
____________________

Notes:

Nichols, JamesMichael. "Taylor Alesena, Transgender Teen And YouTube Personality, Dies". The Huffington Post. 9 April 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 11 April 2015. http://huff.to/1yk1Uju

 

Gutterstomp, or, the Race to the Bottom

It is true that I am enjoying the insanity far too much; the amicus brief filed by Utah lawyer Darrin K. Johns↱ is beyond simply remarkable―it is a work of desperate art.

Amici are same-sex attracted men and their wives. Like petitioners, amici same-sex attracted men have a sexual orientation that attracts them to members of the same sex. Most identified their feelings at a young age. Some grew up during an era when gays and lesbians were unwelcome and treated with hostility. Others were raised in more accepting environments, but nevertheless experienced the isolation and confusion of feeling different. All recognize that they can be open and public about their sexual orientation now only because of the profound and dramatic changes in American society, politics, and culture arising from "a new perspective, a new insight," United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2689 (2013) that has brought much needed tolerance and understanding to the deeply misunderstood and complex reality of same-sex attraction.

Unlike petitioners, however, amici choose to build their families on the foundation of a marriage between a man and a woman. Most questioned, at some point, whether it was possible for them to have a successful marriage with a woman in light of their physical and emotional attractions to men. Some married decades ago when the pursuit of legal same-sex relationshps was never an option. Others married more recently, when they could have chosen same-sex relationships with significant social and cultural support. All agree that marriage between a man and a woman is inherently unique, and all have chosen to marry and remain married to their wives―notwithstanding their attractions to men―because of their realization that such marriages bring joy and happiness to htemselves and to their spuses, children, grand-children, and communities.

Their stories are not based on "reparative therapy," so-called attempts to "pray away the gay," or other efforts to change sexual orientation. Rather, amici fully accept the reality of their same-sex attractions and fully affirm their individual self-worth, just as they are. But they also do not have a choice about their attractions, they do have a choice about their relationships. And rather than cchoose the culturally acceptable and popularly celebrated "traditional" same-sex relationship, these same-sex attracted men instead have chosen marriage to a woman. They are not alone. Analysis of the 2013 National Health Interview Survey reveals that 51% of bisexual adults with children and 18% of self-identified gay men and lesbians with children were living in such marriages.

Amici support the rights of democratic bodies to extend marial privileges, rights, and responsiblities to same-sex couples. Thorugh the deliberative and experimental process of representative democracies, truly diverse solutions can emerge. But if this Court were to prematurely terminate the democratic debate over how best to recognize and respond to the complex reality of same-sex relationships by constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage, it would finalize and federalize this mesage―for the same-sex attactive, marriage to a member of the opposite sex is an impossibilty, even meaningless, and only same-sex marriage can bring gays and lesbians the personal and family fulfillment and happiness that is the universal desire of the human heart. That one-size-fits-all message is false, and the Court ought not send it.

Worse still, a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage can only come a the cost fo marginalizing and demaning the marriages and families of amici and many others like them. Petitioners premise their equal-protection and due-process arguments on the assumption that man-woman marriage laws prohibit, foreclose, disqualify, and exclude gay men and lesbians from marriage and disfavor and demean their very identities and existence. But that could only be true if the marriages of amici and others like them are fakes and shams, so contrary to nature as to be entirely undesirable. Petitioners argue, in essence, that the pursuit of a same-sex marriage is the only way for the same-sex attracted "to be true" to themselves; by insisting so, they demean and disparage amici and their families.

Whereas a democratic right to same-sex marriage is familiarly premised on the proposition that marriages should be extended to include same-sex couples in order to expand individual liberty, a constitutional right to same-sex marriage―based on an alleged impermissible discrimination or denial of right―is necessarily premised on the falsehood that man-woman marriage is impossible, unnatural, and dangerous fo rsame-sex attracted men and women. Legalizing same-sex marriage via the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the ballot box, entitles same-sex couples to marriage only by erasing, marginalizing, and demeaning the same-sex attracted who live in man-woman marriages. Such an erasure of another group's identity and existence is not a "liberty protected by the Constitution." Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 568 (2003).

Rather than expand liberty, such a judgment would not only ignore the deeply fulfilling marriages between same-sex attracted men and women and their spouses, but would also constitutionally demean such marriages and families. Inescapably, striking down man-woman marriage laws on the basis of a consitutional deprivation would send a message to the same-sex attracted that there is only one choice for them, that man-woman marriage is unattainable, that they are acting against their nature for desiring it, and that pursuing it will be dangerous for them, their spouses, and their children. But, in reality, the opposite is true. The institution of man-woman marriage is not an insult; it is an ensign, beckoning to anyone―regardless fo sexual orientation―that the union of a man and a woman is uniquely significant because it is endowed with procreative power and complimentary capacity.​

So here's the fun part: The "summary of the argument" starts after that mess.

There is a lot here, so it's hard to know where to begin, but this really is nearly ineffably bizarre.

(1) "democratic bodies" ― With gay marriage approved by voters in multiple states, this point is now moot; the question shifts to Article IV of the Constitution, and Amendment XIV. That is to say, under Article IV your state has to recognize my state's marriages. From that point forward, denying such marriages within your own state becomes an Equal Protection question. Judge Edwin Rubin explained how this works↱ rather quite concisely while handling an adoption case that passed before his Lafayette County, Louisiana court, and by chance happened to strike the Pelican State's marriage ban.

(2) "impossibility, even meaningless" ― It would appear Mr. Johns or his clients made this one up out of thin air.

(3) "one-size-fits-all" ― Nobody says a gay person must marry a member of the same sex, merely that they may.

(4) "marginalizing and demeaning" ― How does this work? It didn't when it was coming from men who claim to be sexually interested in their wives; why would it work now that it comes from men who dispense with such pretenses entirely?

(5) "democratic right to same-sex marriage" ― See #1 above.

(6) "erasing, marginalizing, and demeaning" ― Again, it would appear Mr. Johns or his clients are just making things up for the sake of having something to say.

(7) "ignore the deeply fulfilling marriages"― Huh? Ignore? More hot air?

(8) "an ensign, beckoning to anyone ... uniquely significant" ― And now we're back to the real point, that heterosexual marriage is superior.

It really is desperation. These amici would argue that the only way to not demean, marginalize, or erase their own marriages is to prohibit gay marriage.

And it's not even a creative twist. Rather, it's just stupid.
____________________

Notes:

Johns, Darrin K. "Brief of Amici Curiae Same-Sex Attracted Men and THeir Wives in Suppor of Respondents & Affirmance". Obergefell v. Hodges. Supreme Court of the United States. April, 2015. bdThisIs.WordPress.com. 14 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1Ic09Vs

 

Why?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Oh ... no ....

Louisiana Republicans are fighting for a new kind of religious freedom law – one critics are calling far worse than the Indiana law that prompted national outrage earlier this month.

HB 707 – the “Marriage and Conscience Act” – says the state can’t take “adverse action” against someone for opposing same-sex marriage for religious reasons; sponsor Rep. Mike Johnson told msnbc he’s hoping the bill will come up for a vote in the next few weeks. If passed, this law would likely ensure, for example, that the state couldn’t punish a state worker who refuses to process paperwork on a name change following a gay marriage in another state, or a police officer who didn’t want to police a same-sex wedding ceremony.

“This Louisiana bill really does what people accused the Indiana law of doing,” leading religious freedom expert and University of Virginia law professor Doug Laycock told msnbc. While Indiana’s law offered up individuals accused of discrimination a legal defense that a judge could then weigh, Laycock explained, this law gives religious individuals absolute protection from state action, without balancing interests of – for instance – whether a gay individual’s right to services outweighs the religious individual’s freedoms.

(Timm↱)​

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal responded to msnbc inquiries via email, stating, "This is not about discriminating against anyone or about judging people. This is simply about protecting the essential religious freedom rights in the First Amendment."

Mr. Jindal apparently thinks discrimination is part of religious freedom. My question to Louisiana Republicans is whether they would be willing to pass a bill that guarantees other people the religious freedom to discriminate against Christians.

The answer is most likely what it ought to be, a resounding "No".

Here, consider the idea of wearing a little gold cross around your neck. "I'm not discriminating against Christianity when I refuse those people service, but exercising my conscience and religious freedom to not participate in mortal hypocrisy."

Does that work?

Again, the answer ought to be "No", but I can cite the Bible and point to any number of public demonstrations of piety, and at that point, I would have a better case than those who would demand the authority of God's judgment for their own earthly desires.

Then again, perhaps we ought to take heart. This is how desperate bigots are getting.

Still, consider that the law is written so that an employer so inclined could withhold benefits from any employee or employee's spouse or family, gay or straight or whatever, on the basis of religious belief or moral conviction about the insitution of marriage. We'll see how that goes over; the intent of the bill↱ is clear according to its own words; see "Legislative findings", (ll. 1.19-2.2).

It would appear that this is part of a tacit movement among Republican officeholders to pick fights they cannot win, in order to rally their voter base by losing spectacularly.

This is Louisiana. This is what Louisiana asserts for a conscience. They will empower discrimination, but, you know, it's not really about discrimination. So says Bobby Jindal.

(In order to assert religious conscience, one must first have a conscience.)
____________________

Notes:

Timm, Jane C. "Proposed Louisiana law protects those who oppose gay marriage". msnbc. 16 April 2015. msnbc.com. 16 April 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1Hy1msf

Johnson, Mike. "House Bill No. 707: Marriage and Conscience Act". Louisiana House of Representatives. 2015. Legis.LA.gov. 17 April 2015. https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=937123

 

Devastating

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Yeah, I've used that image before; on this occasion it just happens to be appropriate.

And, yes, I've already taken a moment or three to mock the amicus brief↑ from Same-Sex Attracted Men and Their Wives, authored by Darrin K. Johns and submitted in the consolidated marriage equality case coming before the Supreme Court next week.

How do I put it? A deeper analysis↱ is harrowing; this brief really is scary, though not for the reasons we might be accustomed to. Rather, it is a display of not so much ego defense as ego flight. The previously-mocked Introduction and Interest of Amici is what it is, but the actual Argument is something else entirely. What Mr. Johns represents of amici looks very much like a genuine human tragedy; they seem to have gathered up all their self-loathing and assigned it to some abstract condition that seems very nearly as if they think acceptance of gay marriage somehow mandates gay marriage:

• "A constitutional mandate requiring same-sex marriage sends a harmful message that it is impossible, unnatural, and dangerous for the same-sex attracted to marry members of the opposite sex" (33)

• "Petitioners’ faulty premise that same-sex attracted men and women cannot, or should not, marry members of the opposite sex leads inescapably to this equally false conclusion―it is unnatural and dangerous for same-sex attracted men and women to choose man-woman marriages. Constitutionally mandating same-sex marriage would reinforce this popular sentiment, injuring amici their families,and many others like them."

• "While same-sex attracted men and women do not choose to have their same-sex attractions, they do choose whether to pursue same-sex or man-woman relationships. Unfortunately, cultural messages present the Hobson’s choice of either denying the reality of those attractions or foregoing any possibility of a man-woman marriage" (35)​

Meanwhile, a fundamental component of the brief is exactly the device that they lament; the first point of the Argument is that "man-woman marriage laws do not prohibit foreclose, disqualify, and/or exclude same-sex attracted men and women from the institution of man-woman marriage". While they complain that allowing same-sex marriage somehow denigrates their own vows, the solution is to denigrate same-sex marriage. This time the sleight is so transparent that the projection is not ego defense but, indeed, ego flight. The whole of the brief's outlook seems to be that since these Utah Mormon same-sex attracted men married opposite sex partners, that's how every gay person should do it.

And yet the whole of what these amici are lashing out against seems to be constructions within their own minds, as if all the doubts and distortions they have learned in these anti-gay communities represent the whole of gay people and gay marriage. It is a sort of self-indictment nobody ought to undertake.
____________________

Notes:

Image note: Lebanon's memories―Pictures from another life, along a more traditional path. (Detail of frame from Darker Than Black: Gemini of the Meteor, episode 5, "Gunsmoke Blows, Life Flows...")​

Johns, Darrin K. "Brief of Amici Curiae Same-Sex Attracted Men and Their Wives in Suppor of Respondents & Affirmance". Obergefell v. Hodges. Supreme Court of the United States. April, 2015. bdThisIs.WordPress.com. 21 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1Ic09Vs

 

Counting the Days: One Week Until Oral Arguments

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

• Bourke v. Beshear
• DeBoer v. Snyder
• Obergefell v. Hodges
• Tanco v. Haslam​

What ... a ... show.↱

Spoiler