Still Protesting

Election Day was over 24 days ago. Proposition 102 won 56.2% to 43.8%. The election is over. The voters decided. It’s time to move on.


Comments

  1. Its only just beginning. I would get used to it.

  2. Well, it’s in the state constitution now, so get used to that…

  3. Steve Sc,
    I predict within 15 years there will be another initiative to overturn this and grant full marriage rights to same sex couples and it will pass. That is, unless the Supreme Court invalidates all such laws denying equal rights to gays and lesbians.

  4. Folks didn’t move on when we voted against an MLK holiday. Remember that?

  5. JaneAZ,

    ‘we voted against an MLK holiday’ Huh? When? I understood the voters of AZ voted for the MLK holiday – the only state in the Union in which the holiday was established by a vote of the voters.

    You may have been one of those who voted against the holiday – and who hasn’t moved on?

  6. Are you saying that being homosexual is the equivalent to being of a certain race? Sounds like the homosexual movement is trying to piggyback on to the civil rights movement. Didn’t the African-American community vote in favor of Proposition 102?

  7. Lila – actually I have seen no data showing the African-American community voted in favor of 102.

    Now by “homosexual movement” do you mean gays and lesbian citizens who want to get married?

    What is interesting is 65% of Democrats and 56% of Independents voted against it while 81% of Republicans voted for it. It was also most widely supported by those over 65.

  8. You all need to see “Milk.” Not only is Sean Penn’s performance brilliant, but maybe it will show you why we protest and why we will ultimately prevail. Demographics are on our side.

    Frankly, I think marriage is pretty stupid and an aping of passe heterosexist values. My oldest friend from second grade over 50 years ago, and her boyfriend have been together since 1974 and although they, as a man and a woman, could marry, they feel no need to.

    I know three male couples, each of whom has been together for more than twenty years, who have no interest in getting married.

    In the old days, many gays were conservatives — Harvey Milk was a Republican who recruited others to work in Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign — because they believed that government intrusion in gay people’s lives would only be detrimental. Of course, the opening scenes of “Milk,” featuring arrests of men just for congregating with others in bars, not for any sexual activity (when I was a teen, it was illegal in New York City simply for a bar owner to sell a drink to a gay person), make it easy to see why they didn’t want to give the government any more power.

    Frankly, I think the government should just get out of the marriage business and leave that to religions and private groups. But since we do have marriage, I am for choice.

    On the other hand, as Ralph Nader, a single straight man, said, unmarried people – straight or gay – are discriminated against today with impunity.

  9. Richard, you wrote, “Frankly, I think marriage is pretty stupid and an aping of passe heterosexist values. My oldest friend from second grade over 50 years ago, and her boyfriend have been together since 1974 and although they, as a man and a woman, could marry, they feel no need to.”

    I don’t know what state this couple lives in but if they live in AZ, this woman is left in the cold if her male companion leaves her for any reason. AZ is not a common-law marriage state so there is no recourse to whatever she has contributed to the relationship. Also when he dies, she has no claim on any of his SS which is probably higher than hers.

  10. excellent post, Richard.

    If only the dialog was this thoughtful on both sides.

    Prop 102 was a moment failed to be acted upon by the Republicans: The debate isn’t about gay marriage, it’s about what the proper role of government aught to be.

    After all, if marriage is a religious institution, and government can’t regulate religion, WHY are we allowing government into ANY MARRIAGE – PERIOD?

  11. The motivating factor is always the same: MONEY. (a subsidiary of POWER).

  12. I have seen this unfold……..
    http://www.cwfa.org/articles/14696/CFI/family/index.htm
    Unmasking The “Gay” Agenda 2/13/2008
    By J. Matt Barber

    Balance of Power

    Americans who self-identify as “gay” or lesbian comprise roughly one to three percent of the population. Yet the homosexual movement — led by extremist homosexual pressure groups like the so-called Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — represent, per capita, one of America’s most powerful and well-funded political lobbies. Consider that HRC and the HRC foundation alone have an annual budget in excess of 50 million.

    Through a carefully crafted, decades-old propaganda campaign, homosexual activists have successfully cast homosexuals — many of whom enjoy positions of influence and affluence — as a disadvantaged minority. They have repackaged and sold to the public behaviors which thousands of years of history, every major world religion and uncompromising human biology have long identified as immoral and sexually deviant.

    The Goal

    As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the “gay agenda.” At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are “equal.” If it feels good, do it.

    Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.

    This creates cultural and moral anarchy.

    Plan of Attack

    Ironically, sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct — by force of law — through federal edicts such as “hate crimes” legislation, the so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA) and by imposing government sanctioned “same-sex marriage.” All such government mandates grant special protected “minority” status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.

    Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be “tolerated,” but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan “celebrate diversity” supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of “tolerance” and “diversity.”

    Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded “homophobic,” “hateful” or “discriminatory.” They are to be silenced by all means possible.

    In Their Own Words

    What you are about to read is just a quick, though disturbing, glance behind the homosexual lobby’s lavender curtain.

    Below are two of the central demands put forth by homosexual activists in their “1972 Gay Rights Platform”:

    “Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.” (This should send a chill down the spine of any parent. It would legally allow pedophiles, and homosexuals who were so inclined, to access your children and teens for their own predatory sexual gratification — so long as those children “consented” to having sex.)

    “Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.” (Once marriage is redefined, there can be no logical or ethical objection to any conceivable “marriage” combination, including polygamous “marriages.” By watering down marriage, “gay” activists and like-minded politicos [usually activist judges] remove this foundational institution’s intrinsic value.)

    Here are just a few of the demands the homosexual lobby put forth during the 1987 (Homosexual) “March on Washington”:

    “The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.” ([ENDA] This would force all religious business owners, landlords and schools to abandon — under penalty of law — sincerely held and constitutionally protected religious beliefs and adopt a view of sexual morality that runs entirely counter to central teachings of every major world religion.)

    “Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools.” (Translation: pro-homosexual, government-mandated indoctrination. This is already occurring in thousands of public schools throughout America. Children are being force-fed the absurd notion that male-male anal sodomy is a perfectly acceptable, “alternative” sexual “orientation.” This calculated propaganda continues to expand, despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged that such behaviors place participants at extremely high risk for dangerous and often deadly infectious disease.)

    “The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.” (This means churches, religious schools and religious businesses. Some jurisdictions, such as the state of New Jersey, have already begun removing tax-exempt status from church related ministries that refuse to provide “commitment ceremonies” to homosexuals.)

    “Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples.” (This is now being mandated in many states such as California and Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities’ adoption service was recently forced to close down because it refused to assign children to homosexuals for adoption.)

    The push for federal “hate crimes” legislation is another activist tool intended to silence traditional views on human sexuality and sexual morality. Similar laws have already been used around the world, and even right here at home, to persecute Christians and other traditionalists. For example, in 2004, 11 Christians were arrested in Philadelphia and charged with a “hate crime” for merely preaching the Bible at a public homosexual street festival. They could have served up to 47 years in prison.

    More recently, a Christian photographer was dragged before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for a lesbian couple because lesbian behavior is inconsistent with Christianity.

    Such stark examples of homofascist persecution continue to mount. And they’re by design. Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the “gay” agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled, “The Gay Agenda”:

    On “hate crimes” laws: “Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.”

    On “hate thoughts” and “hate speech” laws: “Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.”

    On influencing public policy: “Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.”

    On “same-sex marriage”: “Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

    On “gays” in the Church: “Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.”

    The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.

    In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the “gay” agenda.

    They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.

    Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

    Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
    Give potential protectors a just cause.
    Make gays look good.
    Make victimizers look bad.
    Desensitization

    “Desensitization,” wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If ‘straights’ can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.”

    As previously stated, glamorizing and normalizing homosexual conduct in our public schools is a full time endeavor. But the schools represent only one field of battle in the war over America’s body, mind and soul.

    With the aid of a willing mainstream media and a like-minded Hollywood, societal desensitization has been largely achieved. Blockbusters like Tom Hanks’ Philadelphia, the late Heath Ledger’s Brokeback Mountain, and television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen represent a modern-day fairy tale, creating a dishonest and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle which is emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile.

    Reality is replaced with fantasy. Gone are references to, or images of, the millions of homosexual men wasting away in hospice due to behaviorally related diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and Syphilis. (Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. As Romans 6:23 says, “The wages of sin is death.”)

    And gone are references to, or images of, men and women trapped in the homosexual lifestyle who aimlessly seek to fill a spiritual and emotional void through promiscuous and meaningless sexual encounters.

    The homosexual group, GLAAD, even offers awards to the television networks that most effectively carry the homosexual lobby’s water. The more distorted and positive the portrayal of homosexual conduct and the more frequently the networks shows such portrayals; the more likely networks are to win the coveted awards.

    As Kirk and Madsen put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the “Everyman.” “In no time,” they said, “a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.”

    Prophetic words from two very smart men.

    Jamming

    “Jamming” refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the “gay” agenda. “Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror,” wrote Kirk and Madsen. “Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’

    “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector … The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,” they suggested.

    But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, “[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.”

    And so words like “homophobe” and “heterosexism” were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a “homophobe,” a “hatemonger,” a “bigot.”

    Not even churches are safe.

    “Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step … with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of ‘Old Time Religion’ one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. … Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. … [T]hat alliance can work for gays.”

    And, oh, how it has.

    Conversion

    “Conversion” means, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.”

    “In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent — and only later his unsightly derriere!”

    So, as Kirk and Madsen both astutely understood and surprisingly admitted, homosexual activism is really a big game of “hide the ball.” In order to achieve widespread acceptance of “gayness,” they had to remove the focus from what homosexuality really is (deviant sexual conduct) and shift it onto the craftily manufactured specter of “gay civil rights.”

    In order to cut through much of the propagandist sugarcoating, one need only consider what two men must actually do in order to “consummate” a so-called “gay marriage.” Kirk and Madsen understood that. Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for “civil rights.” Of course, in reality, the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with conduct.

    Therein lies the deception.

    But There’s Hope

    There’s hope for people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle or who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction. Part of our fallen condition as humans is that we are all subject to sin. Those who know the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, are no better or worse than those who engage in homosexual sin.

    But through the loving and redemptive power of Jesus Christ, we can all find salvation from sin. So can homosexuals. “Gayness” is not an “immutable” or unchangeable condition as homosexual apologists would have you believe. People can find freedom from homosexual behaviors and even from same-sex attractions. It’s not easy, but untold thousands of former homosexuals have done it.

    There’s also hope in the ongoing battle between the “gay” agenda and our national moral integrity. Concerned Women for America (CWA) endeavors on a daily basis to counter this destructive movement throughout all facets of culture and public policy.

    With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles.

    (For more information about Concerned Women for America and to learn how you can be part of unmasking the “gay” agenda, please call us at (202) 488-7000 or visit CWA’s website at http://www.cwfa.org.)

    Matt Barber is one of the “like-minded men” with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA’s policy director for cultural issues.

  13. 1234567,
    Its hard to know even where to begin with this junk article.

    It begins by pointing to a document authored some 35 years ago and then claims that expanding Civil Rights protections to sexual orientation would force religious businesses and schools to abandon beliefs about sexuality. That is simply ridiculous. Perhaps they are trying to claim it would cause religious schools to alter admissions. Of course it would cause no such things as private schools can in fact still discriminate against people based on race, for instance, as long as they don’t take federal money. Private schools can also discriminate in accepting people of different religions.

    The entire section about what Clinton Fein wrote is laughable because Fein’s article was satire as anyone could tell. IS CWFA really this ignorant?

    The Kirk and Madsen book is interesting because, as even they admit, it had no impact on the gay rights movement and rather than being the “blueprint” it was derided.

    Their is even more of this article that is drivel, but the largest fallacy is that gays and lesbians have emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile lives. The gays and lesbians I know certainly don’t so perhaps this opinion comes from people who don’t actually know any.

  14. 1234567:

    Wow, it’s like a sh-tty website (CWA) within a sh-tty website (SA)!

  15. hey now you are a rockstar says

    Nice link 1234567

    Who knows,

    You are the one on this site so don’t knock it. Todd- The truth hurts!

  16. hey now you are a rockstar,
    What truth – I pointed out that the article was full of falsehoods.

  17. Todd-
    “Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools.” (Translation: pro-homosexual, government-mandated indoctrination. This is already occurring in thousands of public schools throughout America. Children are being force-fed the absurd notion that male-male anal sodomy is a perfectly acceptable, “alternative” sexual “orientation.” This calculated propaganda continues to expand, despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged that such behaviors place participants at extremely high risk for dangerous and often deadly infectious disease.)

    You saying the above mentioned isn’t true in Mass? We have proof it is. I am so glad the citizens of AZ passed 102 by a HUGE margin!!

  18. Everyone,

    Be careful of what you think. The Free-Speech police will tell you what you are free to say:

    TOLEDO, Ohio – The firing of a college administrator over her criticism of gay rights has sparked a debate about free speech and whether universities have the right to regulate what employees say outside of their jobs.

    Crystal Dixon filed a lawsuit Monday in federal court seeking to be reinstated to her University of Toledo job, which she lost after writing in a newspaper column that gay rights can’t be compared to civil rights because homosexuality is a choice.

    “I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims,’ ” Dixon wrote in an online edition of the Toledo Free Press on April 18. “Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman.”

    She also wrote: “There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God’s divine order.”

    Two weeks later, Dixon was fired as the school’s associate vice president for human resources. School officials said her views contradicted university policies, according to the lawsuit.

    Though Dixon’s attorneys say other school administrators were not punished for expressing their opinions, the public university defends its actions.

    “We have asserted from the beginning that Ms. Dixon was in a position of special sensitivity as associate vice president for human resources and this issue is not about freedom of speech, but about her ability to perform that job given her statements,” university spokesman Larry Burns said in a statement.

    Dixon did not mention in the column that she worked at the university, but she did defend the school’s benefits plans and how they apply to gay employees.

    In response to the column, hundreds of people wrote letters calling her views disturbing while others were outraged Dixon was punished for speaking her mind. Conservative talk show hosts and members of her church rallied around Dixon after she was fired.

    “It comes down to whether you’re speaking as an employee of the university or as a private citizen,” said Brian Rooney, a spokesman for Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which is representing Dixon. “If you’re speaking as a private citizen, your speech is protected.”

    The university would have been within its rights to discipline her if she had stated she was a school administrator, Rooney said.

    The nonprofit Christian law firm says its mission includes “defending the traditional family and challenging special rights for homosexuals.”

    “Where is the so-called free expression of ideas and tolerance that universities so adamantly defend?” said Richard Thompson, president of the law center.

    Named as defendants in the lawsuit are University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs and William Logie, vice president for human resources.”

    AZCENTRAL.COM- homepage 6:41pm 12-02-2008

Leave a Reply