Est. May 2008

28 June, 2015

Lest We Forget

The gay lobby long ago swiped the rainbow as their symbol.

For Jews and Christians, the rainbow is a symbol; a symbol of a promise made by God:
I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.” (Genesis 9:13-17, ESV)
What many people forget is that the rainbow is a symbol of something else:
Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” (Genesis 6:11-13, ESV)
It might be a good idea to remember that.

19 June, 2015

On the Upcoming SCOTUS Decision

I've been rattling this SCOTUS SSM decision around in my head, and I can't help seeing a pretty major difficulty should they somehow find (or create) a constitutionally-protected right to SSM based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

For reference, here's the amendment, with the pertinent clause highlighted:
1. 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.
Plenty of Constitutional scholars have pointed out that the amendment, proposed in 1866 and ratified two years later, was designed specifically to grant full citizenship rights to newly-freed black slaves; now it's being used to say that denying SS couples the 'right' to marry is unconstitutional, because it denies them the equal protection of the law.  But that's not really true; if anything, it denies them the benefits provided by the government to married couples – it can't deny them equal protection of the law, because there is no constitutionally-protected right to marriage of any kind.

If SCOTUS somehow finds that the Equal Protection clause grants a constitutionally-protected right to SSM, it must also provide the same right to any other form of marriage – traditional, polygamy, polyandry, child, and so forth; if it does not, then it is in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

And if SCOTUS finds (or creates) a 'right to marriage', that's going to open up another can of worms.

Hypothetical: Person A asks Person B to marry them.  Person B refuses.  Person A sues Person B in federal court for violating their constitutionally-protected right to marriage.

Hypothetical: Persons A and B are married.  Person A files for divorce.  Person B doesn't want to divorce.  Person B sues Person A in federal court for attempting to deny them their constitutionally-protected right to marriage.

People may scoff at those examples, saying that these laws would only apply to people who love each other; in fact, that has been part of the argument over SSM – that two people who love each other ought to have the right to marry.  But this would require SCOTUS or the lower courts to cobble together a legal definition of 'love' – something even non-legal folks have never been able to do adequately.  And I doubt I need remind any of my readers that the majority of divorced people are those who professed to love their partner when they got married.

And if you're tempted to scoff at my hypotheticals up above as something that would never happen, remember that less than two generations ago SSM was also something that would never happen.

14 June, 2015

Inclusion Through Exclusion

Not from The Onion:
Officials at the University of Oklahoma have announced plans to enhance inclusivity on campus by building a separate-but-equal student lounge which will segregate gay, lesbian and transgender students by themselves.
That's right, folks; a group calling itself "Queer Inclusion on Campus" apparently believes they can best emphasize inclusion of LGBTQ students in campus life by creating 'safe spaces' which would exclude any non- LGBTQ students:
“It’s going to be huge,” [OU senior Alexander] Ruggiers also explained. “I think it’s going to be used for a number of things, one, to have a sense of community, something that LGBTQ students have never had before.”
Don't try to figure out how separating the LGBTQ students from the rest of the campus population is going to give them a sense of community within the student body – that kind of thing only works in the la-la land of higher education.
Steering a bunch of gay students into one convenient place will also mean less harassment, predicted OU student David Martin.
At least until they come out of that 'one convenient place and start mingling with the rest of the college community.

Now, I want you think think, for a moment, about this scenario: the college announces that, in order to reduce harassment of the LGBTQ students on campus, they will be creating segregated housing, dining, study, and other facilities specifically and only for the use of LGBTQ students.

How loud do you think the howls of 'prejudice' and 'homophobia' would have been from the LGBTQ crowd?

11 June, 2015

Encouraging Delusion

Every now and then, I'll take a glance at the Dear Abby column in our local newspaper. 

Today, I probably shouldn't have.

10 June, 2015

Ridiculousness

Kirsten Powers has a problem with Mike Huckabee; well, more to the point, a problem with something he said.
The website Buzzfeed unearthed a video of the February comments in which the former Baptist minister [Mike Huckabee. ed] quipped, "Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE. I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, 'Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today.' " As the presumably Christian audience clapped and giggled, Huckabee said, "You're laughing because it sounds so ridiculous, doesn't it?"
Here's her heartburn:
Yes, it does. But not for the reason they think. What's ridiculous — and sad — is that Huckabee, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and his audience appear to believe that transgender people are perpetrating some sort of hoax so they can gain access to public restrooms or locker rooms. Or that they've chosen to identify with a particular gender on a whim. This disregards the actual lives of transgender people, some of whom (though not all) have described feeling trapped in the wrong body from a young age. What's so funny about that?
Absolutely nothing, Kristen ... except for the fact that you completely missed his point.

Re-read, if you will, what Mr. Huckabee said.  "I wish that someone had told me when I was in high school ... "  Now, has Mike Huckabee ever come out as transgendered?  Not that I've ever heard.  And that was his point: he's not so much concerned about transgenders 'perpetrating some sort of hoax so they can gain access to public restrooms or locker rooms'; his concern – which is that of a great many other people who've weighed in on this subject – is that nontransgendered people will do so. 

That's right, Kristen; by allowing a miniscule percentage of the population (approximately a million out of three hundred twenty million, or 0.3%) of people who think they're not the gender they biologically are to use whichever bathroom or public shower they feel is 'right', the door will be open to heterosexual perverts to 'get their jollies' with impunity – all they'll have to do is say, 'I'm transgendered!' 

And if you don't think that's going to happen, you're hopelessly naive.

And that, Ms Powers, is the joke: that a million people with what was once considered (and rightly so) a mental disorder now can force three hundred and nineteen million others to fear going to the bathroom at the park or take a shower at the Y or use a locker room in the high school.

You're right.  It is a bad joke.