Sen. Moua: Same-sex marriage foes ‘fixated on sex-making’

By Andy Birkey
Friday, March 05, 2010 at 3:43 pm
(Lavverrue, Flickr)

(Lavverrue, Flickr)

State Sen. Mee Moua said some who testified at Tuesday’s Senate hearing on gay marriage were so “fixated on the sex-making aspects” that they missed the spirit of the bill. But another aspect of the content of recent hearings on the issue has not yet been scrutinized: Tuesday’s statement by ex-gay activist Janet Boynes was nearly identical to that of Barb Davis White. One difference: Boynes didn’t repeat the claim made by White at last week’s House hearing that “Rosa Parks didn’t move to the front of the bus to support sodomy.”

At historic if symbolic hearings in House and Senate committees, White and Boynes gave first-person narratives about their experiences as African-American women, relating that they find it offensive when gays and lesbians use terms like “civil rights” or “equality” when discussing same-sex marriage.

White, who ran as a Republican against Rep. Keith Ellison in 2008 but is challenging him this year as an Independence Party candidate, staked out her claim to the testimony. “You should know that Barb and another gentleman worked on that language years ago,” White’s campaign manager Stephanie Zais told the Minnesota Independent. “Barb is quoted in a December 2005 newsletter stating those words, and she repeated them again at her recent testimony.”

Zais added, “We cannot control whether or not another person chooses to repeat those words.”

The Minnesota Independent was unable to reach Boynes for comment.

But, this duplication wasn’t the focus of Moua’s criticism, which came after a string of speakers presented their opinions on the nature of sexuality.

Father Michael Becker, representing the Minnesota Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, “With homosexual acts, one person is essentially using another person, and this type of sexual behavior in our culture is rampant. What are the acts? The male homosexual act… If you legalize marriage … you would be teaching [society] that these acts are good and healthy.”

Bill Harley, a psychiatrist for the organization Wallbuilders, claimed that anyone can change their sexual orientation to become sexually attracted to “whatever happens to be available.”

“It is possible for same-sex-oriented people to become opposite-sex oriented. It’s also possible for opposite-sex-oriented people to become same-sex oriented,” he said. “In fact, most of us can become sexually attracted to almost anything or anyone under certain conditions. Eliminate attractive opposite-sex alternatives and people find they can respond sexually to whatever happens to be available.”

Boynes, who calls herself a former lesbian, said, “Science reports that the most deadly sexually transmitted diseases are highly [among] gay men. The human rectum wasn’t made for sexual behavior. The human lining of the rectum easily tears. That’s why the presence of such STDs as HPV, gonorrhea, syphilis, gay bowel syndrome, and HIV are far greater in homosexual relationships.” (Gay bowel syndrome is not a recognized ailment.)

“It seems that the group of testifiers for the last half hour are so fixated on the sex making aspects of these bills,” said committee chair Sen. Mee Moua. “The bills are saying [marriage] is wonderful and if it’s going to be available then it ought to be available to all of us and don’t keep us out.”

She added, “It seems that the the fixation and the focus on the sex acts and the way you all presented it which seems so contrary to the spirit of the bills.”

Here’s White’s testimony on Feb. 22, 2010:

I’m also concerned about children. Some claim that all children need is two loving people in a committed relationship. In my experience this is simply not true. We tried this in my community, the black community, and found it to be wrought with failure. For decades we tried to raise our sons with two loving people, a mother and a grandmother. And we know it doesn’t work. But is anyone listening? There a mountain of sociological data that proves that children are far better off in a home with a mother and a father, not just two people in a committed relationship.

Let me tell you something else. A same-sex marriage environment is an environment with out a mother or a father. Here in the African-American community we already know what is happening. I want to tell you this: also we hear comparisons between same-sex marriage and equality and civil rights and discrimination.

Let me quote the late Rev. John Thomas. “Rosa Parks did not move to the front of the bus to support sodomy.”

I’m deeply saddened that people would accuse me of discrimination, because i believe a mother and a father should raise children. Some would say the laws to include same-sex marriage are like laws banning interracial marriages. I’m from an interracial marriage. Same-sex marriage and interracial marriages have nothing in common.

There is no difference between a black person and a white person other than their skin color when there’s a tremendous difference between a man and a woman. Allowing a black woman and a white man to marry does not change the definition of marriage. However, allowing two men or two women would fundamentally change that definition.

And Boynes’ statement on Mar. 2, 2010:

I am also concerned about children. Some say that all children need is two loving people in a committed relationship. In my experience this is simply not true. We have tried this in my community and found it to be wrought with failure. For decades we have tried to raise our sons with two loving people, a mother and a grandmother. And we know it didn’t work. But is anyone listening? There is a mountain of sociological data that proves children are far better off in a home with a mother and a father, not just two committed people in a loving relationship.

Let me tell you something a same-sex marriage is an environment without a mother or a father and here in the African-American community we already know what will happen. But what I do hear are comparisons between same sex marriage and equality, civil rights and discrimination.

I am deeply saddened that people would accuse me of discrimination because I believe a child needs a mother and a father. Some have said that the laws precluded same-sex marriage are like laws once banning interracial marriage. Same-sex marriage and interracial marriages have nothing in common.

There is no difference between a black person and a white person other than their skin color. But there is tremendous difference between a man and women. Allowing a black woman and a white man to marry does not change the definition of marriage. However allowing two men and two women to marry would fundamentally change the definition.

Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter



Comment posted March 5, 2010 @ 4:11 pm

Heterosexuals are idiots.

Comment posted March 5, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

That is homophobia! Irrational fears about sex, and the sexualization of non-sexual scenarios. When people talk about straight couples they usually don’t sexualize their synergy, but when people talk about gay couples they automatically think of sex, and talk about sex between the couples. That is homophobia. While I understand that homophobia is programmed into all of us, gay people too, like racism, people need to grow up and challenge their cognitive homophobia. Most 5th graders can handle it. It is religious adults who hold tight to their psychological dysfunctions for the sake of being an asshole!

Larry Swanson
Comment posted March 5, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

Couldn’t a pedophile also say they were “born that way”? Does that mean I have to let them marry one of my kids or I am a biggot? Where should I draw the line? As a religious a-hole I will tell you that I have plenty of my own issues but I don’t try to force other people to be accepting of them and I surely do not claim to be better than anyone else. What angers me is having someones ideas forced on me. There is absolutely no societal justification for gay marriage. What is the benefit to society? Spreading disease and halting the reproduction of a society are not benefits. Has anyone thought of what this would do to a health care system that’s already teetering on the brink of collapse? By legalizing marriage companies would have to include homosexuals as dependents or you could be sued. Talk about skyrocketing insurance costs.

Comment posted March 6, 2010 @ 9:27 am

Dear Larry, nobody is asking for your acceptance. Nobody gives a damn about what you think. I don’t speak for every gay person, but I’m confident that some would agree with what I’m about to say. We equal protection under the law. Nothing more, and nothing less. You’re free to be a raging religious asshole, and a pervert; but you’ve crossed the line with votes that have taken away our rights. I absolutely hate you, and every religious corporation whose shallow religion thrives on homophobia. If your pathetic religion falls as a result of gay equality under the law it is nobody’s fault but your own!

Get a life bigot!

Dale Merrick
Comment posted March 6, 2010 @ 9:32 am

Pedophiles might indeed be “born that way,” but the harm in their activity is self-evident. Swanson seems to indicate that allowing gay marriage would somehow affect our national birth rate. Married couples are healtheir and more productive, to answer “what benefit to society” question, and 1/4 to 1/3 of gay couples are raising children, many their biological own from failed straight marriages. Swanson, no one can make you accept gay marriages, but our goverment for its part does need to affirm equality.

Comment posted March 6, 2010 @ 10:37 am

Larry Swanson at 9:29 pm has beautifully proved my point at 4:11 pm.

Thanks Larry!

Comment posted March 6, 2010 @ 1:59 pm

IMO, this attack on the constitutional rights of gays has many of the same characteristics as the recently revealed GOP fundraising document: fear, demonization, and replicating of BS talking points. Let everyone in this country which is governed by the U.S. Constitution have his/her guaranteed civil rights. To do otherwise negates the purpose of the constitution. I’ve read and taught about the U.S. Constitution for 33 years, and I have never read any amendment, or part of it, that ends with the words, “except citizens who are gay.” We either uphold the constitution in all cases for all citizens, or it becomes a document that applies to only CERTAIN citizens. I don’t think this is what the Founding Fathers meant when the document was written.

T-bag Jones
Comment posted March 6, 2010 @ 2:30 pm

So explain to me about the three abusive assholes my mother married. There was a man and a woman. The men treated me like a red headed step child. Or the other 70% of my families marriages that ended in divorce. No same-sex relationships. Just women who kept marrying complete assholes.

Comment posted March 8, 2010 @ 11:02 am

here is the debate that should be had but no one (or very few) is engaging it.

Marriage is not a right. Heterosexuals do not have a right to marriage, neither do homosexuals. As a society we have made a public policy choice to recognize opposite sex marriage and provide special treatment (in the tax code, for example) for it. presumably this is done to encourage marriage because it provides benefits to society (family stability, male and female role models, preferred arrangement to raise children, etc.) Perhaps it is time to revisit that policy decision. That is, are the benefits that opposite sex marriage provide to society worthy of the special treatment? If the answer is no, then the state should stop conferring those benefits. If the answer is yes, then leave the status quo in place. this should have nothing to do with sexual behavior or value judgments about homosexuality. nor should be about whether the state endorses or accepts anyone’s sexual preference.

Comment posted March 8, 2010 @ 11:59 am

Bill is beautifully making the point that “idiots are idiots”. idiocy is not limited to any particular orientation

Comment posted March 8, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

Sigh. Another idiot has spoken. markmwhite, society benefits from stable, legally-recognized relationships that may or may not include children. Yes, it is time to change the status quo by re-visiting public policy and make marriage laws gender-neutral. These laws, by the way, should have nothing to do with sexual behavior or value judgments about sexuality nor should they dictate who one may love and commit to.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 6:53 am

So far I have heard from FlexSF that dreams of an America with Gay marriage and no religious freedom. Another person who thinks Gay marriage is good because her Mom made very poor choices in whom she married. Lane at least answers the question and says that society benefits from stable, legally recognized relationships. That I would agree with but seems pretty vague. This article says that opponents are fixated on sex. Part of the definition of marriage is that the marriage is consumated. If you take that away does this mean that friends could be married in order to enjoy the tax benefits. How about business partners. Based on Lanes definition, marriage just becomes another tax loophole. An already overloaded court system would now have to deal with “divorce” proceedings from people from every walk of life. There are already immigration problems with people getting married just to keep their immigration status. Let’s throw gay marriage into that mix to cause more problems. Someone tell me the specific benefits to society and I will start to listen.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 11:05 am

In response to Larry Swanson:

Mr. Swanson, your pedophile comment is silly. We are talking about two different things: an immutable human characteristic called sexual orientation, and human behavior which (unlike orientation) we are held accountable for. There is no comparison.

A marriage-like relationship (committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong) between two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender is what gay marriage equality is all about. Nothing criminal about it.

When you start talking about pedophilia or other criminal behavior, it has no bearing on monogamous gay couples.

Another way to look at it: a criminal like a pedophile still has a sexual orientation (the vast majority are heterosexual, by the way). So on the one hand you have a person’s sexual orientation (i.e., which gender they are naturally attracted to) and on the other you have a person’s behavior. Two entirely different things.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 11:12 am


you fail to point out the idiocy of what i posted, though you seem to partially agree with my idiocy. what is marriage for? what is the benefit to the state of recognizing any relationship? to make people feel good about themselves? it is probably easiest and best to scrap all laws recognizing marriage. let the churches do what they want. let’s keep the state entirely out of the relationship defining/recognizing business. we don’t need marriage to create children. i see no benefit in state recognition of any relationship.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 11:20 am


I’d highly recommend you read through the court transcripts for the federal proposition 8 case. There has been plenty of expert witness testimony regarding how gay marriage would benefit society and the families this issue affects.

I’d also like to point out that marriage _is_ a right, under our legal system. And the sexual acts conducted are nobody’s business straight or gay under Lawrence v. Texas. [Straights perform the act of "sodomy" as well. Their right to do so is also protected under Lawrence v. Texas].

Gay marriages aren’t being forced on anyone, also. Gay marriage is for people who are already gay. Churches are already protected from being “forced” to perform gay marriages. Just as they aren’t forced to perform marriages for people of other religions. [ example: The Catholic Church doesn't have to marry a Jew to a protestant. Or even a Jew to a Catholic.] It’s the same protection mechanism for the church.

This is not to say that the churches who _want_ to marry gays _can’t_. Because those churches already do! Gays can get married in churches that wish to marry gays any time they want. They’re not seeking religious marriage. They are seeking their right to the legal institution of marriage. Civil Marriage.

Also, saying allowing gay marriage increases sexually transmitted diseases is fallacious on a lot of accounts, but we’ll point out the obvious one. The transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is done through unprotected sex. This has no relationship with marriage because you don’t have to be married to have sex. Your claim is also incorrect because you are equating gays with sexually transmitted diseases. Straights get STDs and spread them through unprotected sex as well. This has more to do with being safe when having sex and less to do with the legal protections for families.

Allowing gay marriage also doesn’t prevent straight people from marrying. There won’t be an effect to straight people who want to marry someone of the opposite sex. The protections for the gay families who already are raising children would be enormous, though. These people are together either way. Allowing or not allowing gay marriage doesn’t affect whether these people are together, whether they raise children, or whether they spend their vacations together. What it does affect is their safety. Their income. The stability of their relationships [ again, please read through the court testimony from the experts from a wide variety of fields. Even the side that didn't want gay marriage was admitting that gay marriage is beneficial to these families and protects their children.]

I would also like to point out that comparing gays to pedophiles is actually an incorrect parallel. Just as paralleling gays to rapists would be incorrect. Pedophiles are predators who prey upon children who are, as legally defined, unable to give legal consent and who are not adults yet. Gay couples are two consenting adults. The parallel would be a gay couple to a straight couple. Two consenting adults.

Hope this information helps. Best wishes and God bless. :)

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 11:37 am

markmwhite, that’s a nice thesis but with one flaw. The lifelong committed relationships of gay Americans serve the same function in society as those of heterosexual couples. Perhaps not as many gay couples raise children (though this is changing), but procreation has never been a requirement of obtaining marriage license.

In fact, it seems rather nice that gay couples are adopting the unwanted throwaways of heterosexual unions.

At any rate, your argument seems to me just another attempt to deny gay couples the civil equality promised them in the constitution. When put to the test, I don’t think it will hold water.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 11:39 am

Here’s a link to the court transcripts from the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case ( The Federal trial regarding California’s Proposition 8. Prop 8 took away the right for gays to marry in California. )

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 11:42 am

Larry, assuming you are a straight male you are already free to marry a female friend, a female coworker, or a female stranger. Aside from occasional immigration shenanigans, people generally don’t do that. They marry their lifelong love in order to have recognized by the state their decision to unite as a family unit. What makes you think anything would be different for gay couples?

In short, if marriage is a good institution at all (and I think it is) then it is equally good for gay couples.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 11:47 am


It is interesting that you say “are the benefits that opposite sex marriage provide to society worthy of the special treatment? If the answer is no, then the state should stop conferring those benefits. If the answer is yes, then leave the status quo in place” but fail to mention that the status quo allows for no fault divorce. Or does the destruction of the family not matter as long as opposite sex marriages are the only ones allowed or given benefits by the state.

Bill is right

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 12:28 pm

so sandy is for compulsory unions, or should people be allowed to divorce? if divorce is so bad (a question, not a judgment) then i am even more in favor of no legal definition of marriage.

i’m open-minded enough to be further educated. someone please tell me where the right to marriage is established. I’m aware of the right to freely associate, but not of the right to combine with another to form a new legal/familial entity. one should be allowed to couple (triple, quadruple) in any manner they want and form a family in any construct they want. but that is entirely different than invoking a right to special treatment based upon the form of one’s union. yes, i agree that heterosexual marriage currently enjoys special treatment. but this is not a right, it is a benefit that is conferred by public policy in the form of a law – a law that can be lawfully changed. the current definition of marriage equals special treatment. that is what the debate is about.

to be clear, i’m not against marriage, i’m not against gay marriage. i merely want a frank, honest, and open discussion. in this manner we can make the best decisions regarding public policy. if that is idiocy, then i’m guilty as charged.


Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 3:06 pm

I would not advocate denying anyone their rights. But I do get defensive about people inventing rights that don’t exist. Does Rich suggest that heterosexual unions are identical to homosexual unions? I’m not judging better or worse, but making meaningful distinctions. Similarly, is anyone arguing that males and females are identical? Current public policy makes a distinction between hetero/homesexuals, and they are in fact different. The question again is do these differences warrant the special treatment that is currently a legal part of our public policy? The preponderance of those posting here, I’m guessing, would conclude that “no” the differnces do not warrant special treatment. fine by me, but that is not the kind of debate we all hear in the general public. All i really want is for that kind of honest debate to occur on a large scale. I think people get side tracked, on the one hand by prudes, bible-thumpers and homophobes obsessing about irrelevant things, and on the other hand by zealous activists trying to invent rights and ignore the inherent differences in the respective types of unions.

i’ll shut up and listen now

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 3:33 pm

markmwhite, I did not say “identical.” That would be silly. I said gay and straight lifelong relationships serve the same purpose in society. That is, a family. Stable homes, pooled financial resources, raising children, etc. If you disagree, please explain.

As to the “right” of civil marriage:

Loving v. Virginia, 1967 (US Supreme Court): “These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978 (US Supreme Court, concurring opinion): “The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And the decisions of this Court have made clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties so protected.”

Turner v. Safley, 1987 (US Supreme Court): Even prisoners serving time in prison have the constitutional right to marry. “Marriages…are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship.”

So the question is, since marriage is a constitutionally-protected right for opposite-sex couples, including interracial couples, deadbeat dads, convicted murderers – why is it not so for law-abiding, taxpaying, lawn mowing couples who happen to be of the same gender?

Since it is not illegal to be gay, and gay citizens will be in these relationships whether the state recognizes it or not, I assert there are no constitutionally justifiable grounds on which to deny them the “marriage license” that opposite-sex couples can get for $45 at the courthouse. Again, if you disagree I’d love to hear why.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

markmwhite, if I might add…

We don’t give interracial couples a “Transracial Union Certificate” and create a parallel institution to segregate them. We don’t call a 30 yr old with a 50 yr old a “Bi-Generational Partnership.” Or a couples in their 80s getting married, we don’t refer to them as a “Post-Procreational Domestic Alliance.” People sometimes use the term “marriage of convenience” for couples who join for reasons other than love, but even they don’t get a segregated parallel civic institution.

There are lots of differences within marriage. Why single out gay couples for exclusion from this longstanding institution? I submit that what they have in common (love, fidelity, commitment, family, mutual care, etc) is far more substantive than what they do not (gender). Wouldn’t you agree?

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 4:14 pm

markmwhite, try re-reading Heather’s two posts – and taking some time to peruse the link she provided. As long as marriage is a civil right under our legal system, it is WRONG to deny this to loving same-sex couples who commit to each other. And you did admit that you would not advocate denying anyone their rights …

Personally, I don’t see how the love and commitment that a same-sex couple has for each other is any different from the love and commitment shared by an opposite-sex couple.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

thank you for answering my question about where the right comes from. i could have been spared the comparisons to interracial and intergenerational unions, comparisons which as farcical on their face.

i assume that for argument sake we are dismissing the obvious biological differences in same vs. opposite sex unions – as if the propogation of the species is irrelevant. again, fine by me if that is the explicit assumption of this debate. we don’t need marriage to procreate. of course the respective unions are not identical, nor did Rich say that. I was making the point that their differences are not irrelevant and that they do not entirely serve the same purpose. same sex couples, generally speaking, cannot procreate – but for our purposes here we are stipulating that that is irrelevant (the general public is not so generous).

i assume by using those citations that those cases deal directly with same sex marriages. So having established a right to marry it is hard for me to see how some states can limit that right, or how there could be any limit to marriage. I think some traditional sects of the LDS church will be greatly relieved.

i don’t think the following conclusion was really where i started, but the more i challenge my own logic the more i think the state should just stay out of the marriage business. churches can define them anyway they want, but that should have no legal effect on the state. labelling a relationship makes it no more stable. we don’t need a label to exist as a family of our own definition, we certainly don’t need a label to procreate.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

markmwhite, marriage is a label that everyone understands and appreciates. It is also not realistic for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. For instance, how should we handle the simple matter of property inheritance absent legal definitions of certain relationships? Churches simply are unable to handle this.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 5:53 pm

markmwhite, the US Supreme Court cases I cited were about other petitioners seeking expansion or clarification of marriage rights, not about same sex marriage. I cite them because the explicit language in the ruling can’t be ignored as precedent in the current case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

The only previous same sex marriage case I know of is Baker v. Nelson in I think 1972, in which the Court denied to hear the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.” I think we can both agree there is now a substantial federal question.

Not to beat the dead horse, but I want to underline that while it is obvious a same-sex couple is not literally the same thing as an opposite-sex couple, my point was there simply are no constitutional grounds on which to make the distinction. True, the gay couple can’t procreate on their own, but that is only significant if procreation is a prerequisite for a marriage license.

I have to agree with Lane that the state getting out of the marriage business is not realistic. That said, if they did I would support it. Until that day, though, gay couples have every expectation to be treated the same by law as they would be if they were straight.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 5:57 pm

One argument I hear a lot is that “the will of the people” has not been sufficiently heard in deciding the gay marriage question. I contend that matters of fairness and justice should not be subject to popular vote in the first place.

When the CA Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage in 1948, 90% of Americans opposed it. By 1958, the number had increased and 94%. In 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized marriage equality for interracial couples on a nationwide level, 72% still opposed it. It wasn’t until 1994 that these people were in the minority for the first time with 41% opposing and 45% approving.

Thank God we have a constitution and a judicial branch of government to set us right when we make mistakes.

1948 figure from Gail Mathabane, “Gays face same battle interracial couples fought,” USA Today, 2004-JAN-25.

Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 11:48 pm

Just wanted to clarify that I was not comparing pedophiles to homosexuals. My point was from an ethical perspective you are asking me to accept something that I am against based on the fact that someone was “born that way”. What I was trying to do was turn the tables around so that the homosexual community can understand where I am coming from. Hopefully, they are all against pedophiles. How would they respond if I came to them and asked them to support marriage rights or other priviledges for pedophiles. I don’t believe anyone should be discriminated against based on sexual preference but I’m not sure why it should be given special priveledges. I’m also worried about a homosexual agenda that has passed gay marriage in other countries and then proceeded to ban any speech that is against homosexuality as hate speech. Perhaps one of the few things we agree on, the constitution, will be enough to prevent that from happening here in the US. If it’s acceptance you want I think you are already well on the way. I’ve already had to explain homosexuality to my grade school children multiple times. Sometimes I wonder who is pushing their religious and moral values on to whom?

Paul Schmelzer
Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 8:32 am

Pedski/Larry: Please not our comment policies; if you’d like to keep commenting here, please stick with one username. Thanks.

Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 9:00 am

Larry, sexual orientation is neither good nor bad. It just is. Pedophilism is NOT a sexual orientation; it is my understanding that 9x% of pedophiles are straight. Need I mention the ongoing crisis in the Roman Catholic Church. I suggest you de-link pedophilism and homosexuality in your mind, and keep this in mind as you continue talking with your children. Until the day you can comfortably say gay or lesbian rather than use the word homosexual, you will continue to be needlessly conflicted.

Again, civil marriage is a civil right under our legal system. It is WRONG to deny this to loving, committed same-sex couples. Matter of fact, we in the gay community feel that until this injustice is corrected, it is the straight married couple that is actually receiving special privileges.

Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 9:31 am

Until liberty is for all of us, gay, straight, white, black, muslim, christian, jew….there will be trouble.

Follow the constitution. It says NOTHING about marriage, who can, who cannot. Do not dabble into the constitution to instill YOUR morals upon ME. Keep your laws off my humanity.

Again, people, you simply cannot legislate MORALS.
(Although I realize there are those tyrants who would try.)

And those who try, simply fail to realize that we are all we have, and we should be tolerant of each others weaknesses and strengths as best we can. You don’t have to like me (hell, I probably don’t like YOU). But you DO have to respect my privacy, my humanity, and my own meandering spirit.

Personally, I cannot hardly believe there are so manyn gays wanting to marry, when a social contract would do the same thing.

Marriage is, after all, supposedly between you, your mate, and god. The state only recognizes the union as a contract. Why gays want marriage is beyond my understanding. Most gays I know are smarter than that.

Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 9:45 am

smarter than that – I was referring to religion.

Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 11:00 am

Larry, you need to understand that sexual orientation is not chosen. The fact is, science has not yet figured out why some people are gay.

But let me tell you, no gay person would ever, ever, EVER choose it. That notion defies all logic. That’s like choosing to be blind. Why choose something that makes life so much harder? Gay teens attempt suicide at vastly higher rates because of the hell they know they are in for being gay in a predominantly straight world. If you really want to believe that people chose it, then you are obtuse beyond help.

I suspect it is a belief you hold on to because it’s a support beam holding up your other beliefs about gay people. “They chose it, therefore whatever issues they have are their own fault. They must deal with the consequences of their choice.”

Only, it is not a choice.

I’d like to leave you with a quote from Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP:

“When someone asks me, ‘Are gay rights civil rights?’ My answer is always, ‘Of course they are.’ Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives. The right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not or should not enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn’t special to be free from discrimination.”

Comment posted March 19, 2010 @ 4:39 pm


I understand that you are trying to create a parallel in relation to how you feel being asked to accept gays. However, that isn’t what is being asked. Nobody is saying that you personally have to like gays. What is being said is that under our legal system, gays should be afforded the same rights that straights are in relation to marriage. If you were to come to the gay community they would agree with you that pedophilia should not be accepted in our society BECAUSE this causes irreperable harm to the non-consenting, non-legal-age children they accost. This is not an opinion or a moral view. This is cold hard fact. There is scientifically documented harm. This is why we do not allow pedophiles to accost children.

This type of harm is not present when we look at gays. Also, Gay families do not cause this type of harm. That is why gays ARE allowed to freely associate, they are allowed to be together, and their personal conduct in their homes is nobody else’s business under the law. All of these are facts. When Gays marry, they are marrying consenting adults. This difference is crucial. This isn’t about subjective morals or ethics. There are scientific studies from reputable sources that have shown how gay families raise healthy, well-adjusted children the same as straight families do. Studies also show that gays are perfectly normal folk, who live perfectly normal lives and also how having marriage DOES, in fact, increase the stability of the couple through a variety of means. ( I will, once again, point you to read through the transcripts on the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case where they talk about these benefits at length with testimony from expert witnesses.)

Gay families are not being given special privileges by being allowed to marry, as someone else pointed out. It is actually straight families who are being given special privileges above gay families. Claiming they can procreate for the reason is highly inaccurate since procreation is not a requirement for marriage and also because gay families have children and raise children just like straight families do. There is definitely more in common than not in common between these family types and if you look at the case from a legal perspective, there is no decent reason not to treat gay families equally under the law.

To move to your other point, discrimination based on people being gay will not be allowed in this country. That’s a fact. We have anti-discrimination laws and they will be enforced, just as they are enforced against people who dislike folks of other races or other genders. However, our protections for free speech are incredibly strong in this country. Your church will retain its ability to proclaim that all gays are going to hell and you will retain your ability to say you dislike gays and you think they just aren’t going about things the right way, just as you have the right to say so about people of different races, creeds, religions, genders, etc. But you can’t deprive people of equal rights based upon your own opinion or personal moral views. You have to have provable facts for depriving people of equal rights. The facts favor allowing gays equal protection.

To the person who claimed that the same protections can be created through legal documents, I’d like to point at that you are wrong on this matter. Not everything can be fixed through separate legal papers and those things that can have less weight to them when contested in court than marriage does. [ For example, civil unions tend to get slammed in court and twisted because they don't have the case precedent giving them heft the same way that a legally bindable marriage does.] Also, expecting gays to pay thousands more to gain the same rights that straight families gain for a couple hundred dollars winds up being socio-economic discrimination. There are plenty of poor gay families just as there are plenty of poor straight families.

Comment posted March 19, 2010 @ 11:34 pm

Despite the media shoving homosexual lifestyles down everyone’s throat over the last few decades, the fact is, no parents will ever be happy to hear their offspring is gay. That was true 1000 years ago, today, and 1000 years from now. So get over it, and be happy that we live in a society where liberty is valued above all else and you can life your lifestyle in peace.

Government should have no role in any marriage matters, gay or straight. We’re all adults. Mind your business and I’ll mind mine.

Comment posted August 7, 2010 @ 9:08 am

I’m a guy married to a woman with a different pigmentation than my own. Other than the occasional extreme left-winger asking me “what are they?” when my children were babies, the most outrageous thing I have ever dealt with is ultra-leftists who assume that I must favor gay marriage.

Marrying someone of a different race has absolutely nothing to do with the gay marriage issue.

I think the homosexual cause has been hijacked by reactionary nihilists who are out to destroy America once and for all. Moral relativism is joke. Tattooed freaks are well, tattooed freaks. UFC watching barbarians are well, barbarians. Anything does not, and should not go.

That said, I am fine with any religious organization that wants to marry gays to marry them. I am fine with civil union benefits for committed homosexuals. It is clearly the right of gay couples to consider themselves married. The question is whether there is a constitutional right for gays to receive society’s stamp of approval about their being married.

I think they are going to be out of luck when this goes to the Supreme Court. There is no right to a status for which they are ineligible. My aunt would be my uncle if she had balls, but she doesnt.

The August 2010 ruling in California is preposterous as apparently it is based on the premise that men and women are interchangable. Although the uber-liberals love this, the simple fact of the matter is that he is sorely mistaken. Gender exists, and it remains relevant.

Betty Friedan will unquestionably go down as one of the worst human beings to ever live. The notion that motherhood isn’t the paramount role of women is unbelievable destructive to the value of human life and the sustainability of our culture and civilization.

Cultural change has consequences, and we are duty bound to take care of our planet and our civilization while we pass through this world. The past 50 years has been an utter failure.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.