The Gay Gene?

The Gay Gene?

President Says He Will End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – Political News – FOXNews.com

President Says He Will End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – Political News – FOXNews.com .

UNCOVERED AUDIO: OBAMA’S ‘SAFE SCHOOLS CZAR’ CRITICIZES SCHOOLS FOR PROMOTING HETEROSEXUALITY

I found the following on Breitbart.tv:

Boycott Ben & Jerry’s

If you care about traditional marriage, and believe redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships is wrong, you might want to consider a Ben & Jerry’s boycott.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6125277/Ben-and-Jerrys-renames-ice-cream-Hubby-Hubby-in-celebration-of-gay-marriage.html

AP source: Benefits for govt workers’ gay partners

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, whose gay and lesbian supporters have grown frustrated with his slow movement on their priorities, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees but stopping short of a guarantee of full health insurance, a White House official said.

Obama planned to announce his decision Wednesday in the Oval Office, the official said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because Obama had not signed a presidential memorandum putting his plan into place.

The decision is a political nod to a reliably Democratic voting bloc that has become impatient with the White House in recent weeks.
Several powerful gay fundraisers withdrew their support from a Democratic National Committee event June 25 where Vice President Joe Biden is expected to speak. Their exit came in response to a Justice Department brief last week that defended the Defense of Marriage Act, a prime target for gay and lesbian criticism.

Without Hate

by Noel Bagwell
June 12, 2009

I am pleased to announce the (self-)publication of my new book, Without Hate, available via print-on-demand from CafePress.com. This is the first edition of this book, and I am hoping that it will be well received, of course. Also, I am available to speak on the material and issues covered in my book, and will be happy to consider invitations to do so, upon request.

"Without Hate" by Noel Bagwell, available from CafePress.com

I wrote this pamphlet, book, treatise… call it what you will… in order to provide some advice to traditionalists and social conservatives on the topic of discussing the issues related to the homosexual social and political agenda with secular-progressives and homosexual agenda activists.

I feel that any genuine, serious expression of hatred towards another human being is morally wrong. Also, I feel that fear of what is different, solely because it is different, is a trait indigent to those possessed of a particularly potent form of intellectual cowardice. I want to make it clear that I believe that genuine homophobia is inappropriate.

I also believe, however, that there are valid, compelling reasons to oppose the homosexual social and political agenda in the United States of America and around the world. Furthermore, these reasons have nothing to do with fearing homosexuals or hating them, nor are they necessarily rooted in the teachings of any particular faith or religion.

Discussion With A Liberal Mind: Homosexual Marriage

By Noel Bagwell
May 27, 2009

I just want to take this opportunity – as I am inspired in the moment – to break down an online “discussion” (or at least one portion of it), on the topic of the recent ruling by the CA State Supreme Court on the same-sex marriage issue, that occurred on a social networking site that I use.

First, I will quote the point of view that my friend put forth. Then, I will respond to each portion of their statement of their point of view, as this is a complex issue, and some assumptions are made by the quoted “speaker,” who shall remain nameless because I do not wish to embarrass them.

I was led to believe that we live in a FREE country, where you may use any word you like (even if people don’t agree with how you use it), and where people are supposed to have EQUAL rights.

The unfortunate fact is that a “civil union,” in many states (including California), does not does NOT entitle the individuals who enter into it the same rights as a spouse in an, as Miss California puts it: “Opposite” marriage. They have done nothing criminal, why are they denied rights that straight couples enjoy freely– some even abuse and take for granted.

There are a multitude of states where gay and lesbian couples have NO legal way for their relationship to be recognized by the state. This, in turn denies them rights to spousal insurance benefits, tax breaks, common assets, and much more.

Furthermore, a language is a dynamic creature, just like our society and it will change. I know I refuse to let uncle Sam censor me.

The above point of view, I believe, is shared by most liberals, including many (if not most) homosexual agenda activists. I think it was articulated in the same way, too, as they generally tend to articulate the issue, and I think it is worthy of a response. For said response, proceed on.

I was led to believe that we live in a FREE country, where you may use any word you like (even if people don’t agree with how you use it), and where people are supposed to have EQUAL rights.

Yes, that is true, to an extent. However, there is a difference between using a word and using a word correctly – especially when it comes to legal nomenclature. Different words express different meanings, as should be apparent to any sufficiently reasonable, intelligent, educated adult (and which I am sure is apparent to the person to whom I am responding, as they, indeed, are such an individual, though I believe they are also somewhat misguided, misinformed or both).

In this case, “marriage,” means “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” That is the traditional definition of marriage that has been essentially the same since time immemorial, and that is the general understanding that nearly everyone has of marriage. Trying to change it now is little more than a ploy to try to mainstream or normalize homosexual behavior. It is part of the secular-progressive agenda, in general, and part of the homosexual social and political agenda, in particular. This scheme is both transparent and shameful – particularly because it is being done through the courts in order to bypass the will of the voting majority which has voted TWICE in California’s case against allowing homosexual unions to be legally referred to as “marriages” (which they are not).

Now, as you said, we are entitled to equal rights under the law, but that does not mean that everyone is the same. It means that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” meaning that no one class of people can be given more rights than any other class of people (whites cannot have more rights than blacks, for example), but it is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court has not extended suspect-class status to sexual orientation.

(Homo- or Hetero-)Sexual behavior is behavior; it does not make you a specific “kind” of person. It is not a “race,” nor is it intrinsically physiological (as opposed to psychological); in other words, there is no known “gay gene” or genetic predisposition to homosexuality. Without some defining characteristic, aside from behavior (which can change, be mimicked, etc.), it is impossible to classify a group of people as “A,” “B,” “C” or “X,” “Y,” or “Z,” which would be necessary in order to make them a protected class.

The unfortunate fact is that a “civil union,” in many states (including California), does not does NOT entitle the individuals who enter into it the same rights as a spouse in an, as Miss California puts it: “Opposite” marriage. They have done nothing criminal, why are they denied rights that straight couples enjoy freely– some even abuse and take for granted.

This statement is the basis for my prior comment that my aforementioned friend is misguided, misinformed or both. This statement is either a misunderstanding of the facts or a blatant fabrication. I’m inclined to give the individual who made it the benefit of the doubt, and attempt to correct their misunderstanding.

Homosexuals are not denied any of the “rights” that straight couples enjoy under the laws. I’ll just quote the L.A. Times, a liberal newspaper, which you may be more inclined to believe than someone you feel might be “biased” on the topic:

Proposition 8 merely “carves out a narrow and limited exception” to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.

The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into “committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships” that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state’s domestic partnership law.

“Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right,” George wrote.

There it is: not my words, but those of the liberal L.A. Times. So, again, it is just patently false to assert that homosexuals are being denied any rights that straight people have (even though they’re not a protected class, in all jurisdictions, under the U.S. Constitution).

There are a multitude of states where gay and lesbian couples have NO legal way for their relationship to be recognized by the state. This, in turn denies them rights to spousal insurance benefits, tax breaks, common assets, and much more.

This is also manifestly wrong. Homosexuals may enter into any contract they wish, just as heterosexual adults may. From a legal point of view, marriages are contracts – as are civil unions, etc. – which allow the parties involved to have certain rights (property rights, power of attorney, etc.). These rights can also be conferred via contracts other than marriage.

Want to leave someone your property when you die? Put them in your will. Want a living will, where so-and-so gets to pull the plug, put it in a contract and have it notarized. You get the idea. Contract law satisfies the legal requirements for binding two people together in various ways.

It may not be as simple as just going down to the courthouse and getting married, but it is possible. It is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly ignorant to claim that homosexual couples “have NO legal way for their relationship to be recognized by the state.”

Furthermore, a language is a dynamic creature, just like our society and it will change. I know I refuse to let uncle Sam censor me.

“Uncle Sam” is not censoring anyone. It is perfectly fine for homosexual couples to go around calling each other “spouse” or whatever the applicable term is. In a homosexual male “marriage,” who is the wife? Who is the husband? Are they both the husband? The issue is unclear. The point is: we all, as you astutely pointed out, have the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

What Proposition 8 said is that the legal nomenclature of “marriage” is confined, for the purposes of state law, to relationships between members of the opposite sex. So, the term “marriage,” in the eyes of the law, refers specifically to a relationship between a man and a woman.

Proposition 8 did not “outlaw same-sex marriage,” in that it did not make same-sex marriage a criminal act. It is in no way illegal for homosexuals to have what they call a “wedding” ceremony of some kind and go around calling each other their “spouse,” if that’s what they want to do. If they do that, it will be wrong (and I don’t mean morally, per se; that’s not my call) in the sense that it is not legally accurate.

Language changes, yes. Still, that does not mean that any term can be applied to any concept and still be correct. If I point to a tree and say, “rock,” indicating that the object I’m pointing to is a “rock,” I am wrong. Similarly, if I were to point to a homosexual couple that has committed to love each other forever in some sort of ceremoney in front of their friends and family and I say, “married,” I would be wrong. It is a matter of applying terms appropriately to concepts.

Our society, too, may change, but right now we have the rule of law under the U.S. Constitution and the various state constitutions, and those constitutions describe very clearly how to go about making changes to the law as with regard to society. If you want to change the way we recognize marriage under the law, you need to do it by going through the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, not through LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES, which, by the way, is what Proposition 8 is really all about. It’s about the will of the people VS. the will of a panel of judges.

So, go ahead, and refer to homosexual unions as “marriages” if you like. Just know two things: calling a horse a “cow” doesn’t make the horse a cow and the rule of the people still prevails (for now) in this country… at least on the issue of homosexual marriage in California.

PROP 8 UPHELD… KINDA…

By Noel Bagwell
May 26, 2009

Did you think Proposition 8 – an AMENDMENT to the California Constitution – had settled the homosexual rights issue, once and for all?

Think again! The CA court just ruled to uphold the 18,000+ same-sex marriages in CA that had been performed during the period when secular-progressive activist judges temporarily “legalized” homosexual marriage. So, those so-called “marriages” are being grandfathered in.

At least they upheld the democratic process and the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage in the future

From Breitbart.com:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – The California Supreme Court has upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.The decision Tuesday rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution’s equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature’s approval.

TAKE 2: CA Superme Court on Homosexual Marriage (Yes, again!)

By Noel Bagwell
May 26, 2009

The subversion of the democratic process in California is underway, yet again. Defying the will of the majority of voters in California, homosexual agenda activists have filed a series of lawsuits to try to have the Constitutional Amendment known as “Proposition 8″ overturned on a technicality.

The AP reports:

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court will rule Tuesday on the validity of a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, a decision that will end months of speculation over whether gay couples can resume marrying in the state.

The high court announced the pending opinion on its Web site Friday morning.

Justices are considering a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November that overruled a 4-3 court decision that briefly legalized same-sex unions. The suits claim Proposition 8 was put on the ballot improperly.

The court also will decide whether to uphold the marriages of an estimated 18,000 gay couples who wed before Proposition 8 passed. The election came after a contentious $83 million campaign that made it the most expensive ballot measure on a social issue in the nation’s history.

Despite what views you may hold regarding the morality of homosexuality, it is impossible to ignore the simple fact that homosexuality is unpopular among Americans. There is still a cultural stigma on homosexuality that has deep roots in the Judeo-Christian values on which the United States was founded.

The secular-progressive agenda includes “mainstreaming” homosexuality, and the mainstream media (Hollywood, Network television, magazines, newspapers, etc.) over the last 25 – 35 years or so has been complicit in foisting this agenda on the American people – whether they want it or not.

Also, educational incentives to promote “tolerance” and “diversity” (the two key words that indicate a shift away from traditional values and social mores towards a more secular-progressive policy agenda) have reshaped the way the younger generations see these issues, crippling their ability to take an objective, reasoned look at this issue. Instead, their moral indignation is inflamed by secular-progressives who label those with opposing views as “intolerant” or “homophobic.” No room is given in the prescribed view for honest dissent that is not based on any kind of fear or hatred.

The most dangerous, divisive and anti-democratic way that secular-progressives have forced the homosexual agenda on the population, however, is not through the media nor through the educational system, but through the judicial system. Instead of taking (and accepting the results of) a vote on the issue of homosexual marriage, homosexual agenda activists take action in the courts, where secular-progressive activist judges decide to grant new, unprecedented “rights” to special interest groups (in this case, of course, homosexuals).

This is a dangerous subversion of the democratic processes we have in place to determine what is legal and to create new laws and shape our society. If a panel of half a dozen or so judges can say to hundreds of thousands of voters, “This is what we believe, so this is what you’re going to do, even if you disagree,” it is time for the people of California to stand up and revolt.

Let us not forget the words of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Enough is enough, California. What is it going to take for you to take action and take back your government?

Obama Avoids Test on Gays in Military – WSJ.com

By Noel Bagwell
May 19, 2009

Obama Avoids Test on Gays in Military – WSJ.com.

Even when they control both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch, liberals still get their dirty work done through the courts. Who needs the Democratic process, am I right, liberals?