Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Why Gay Initiatives keep Failing

31 states and (counting) 5 (plus some states with civil union provisions) and all 5 states were initiatives by their state legislatures or face a state constitutional vote.

"Gay marriage" lost its initiative in Maine while civil unions passed in Washington state. The gay community is still reeling from the reversal in California last year as Prop 8, the biggest mishandled referendum to date, still scorns homosexuals.

California and Maine are two liberal states, in fact, their idea of "Conservative" and electable Republicans are Olympia Snowe or Arnold Schwartzenegger.

So why are they failing?

I'm reminded of a blog post I read some time ago: "Marriage is a Religious Rite, not a Constitutional Right." Gay activists expect to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a "right"?

This is NOT just a battle with Bible thumpers from Southern Baptists Churches, homosexuality is NOT accepted by Jews or Muslims -- they murder homosexuals in the streets or Iran.

In May, a poll of 500 Muslims in Britain revealed zero tolerance towards homosexual acts. compared to their counterparts in France and Germany, according to a survey published today.1 NONE! Even in France and Germany, the figure never tops 48%!

Activists CANNOT continue to pretend that they are fighting just the Christian Coalition, Pat Buchanan, but rather ALL RELIGIONS.

Likewise, a series of discrimination lawsuits against churches have followed legalizing gay marriages. In April the Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller posted this on his website:

"If necessary, we will explore legal actions to enforce and implement the court's ruling, working with the Iowa Dept. of Public Health and county attorneys."

Now we have lawsuits answering to lawsuits creating a larger and larger divide between both sides. It's hard to believe the gay community in sincere that "marriage" is what they desire, when churches are being FORCED to marry couples or face legal action.

Likewise, we already have a lawsuit in Maine against a teacher (Don Mendell) who appeared in an anti-gay marriage ad who is having his license brought into question. There is no such lawsuit against other educators who appeared in ads supporting the amendment. (Complete story below)

Next are the comparisons to civil rights and the civil rights movement itself.

Approximately 77% of the Black California voters, 92% of which voted for President Obama, voted DOWN Prop 8. They obviously DON'T see it as a RIGHT and definitely NOT a "civil right" comparable to the oppression of blacks.

There have been horrible crimes against gays, Matthew Shepard is the most famous case, but there are no separation of bathrooms, seats on a bus and certainly no lynchings like those in the 60's.

Most of us have people close to us that we care dearly for who are gay. Even Dick Cheney is NOT trying to lynch his daughter because she's a lesbian or his new grandchild.

Then we have a lack of leadership.

Sure President Obama can talk out of the other side of his mouth at a GLAAD fundraiser, but he's been enigmatic on the topic since taking office. He's just NOT willing to burn political capital for gay rights.

Where's the leaders of Congress: Barney Frank, Jared Polis (Colorado) or Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin) -- how many of you reading this NEVER heard of Polis or Baldwin???

I'm sure you'll hear about the massive amounts of money funding anti-gay ads, blaming out-of-staters swaying the votes in each of these states, but the pattern is clear -- no.

You are NOT going to undo someone's religious perspective on traditional values in this manner. You are NOT going to garner support by comparing your plight to that of the civil rights movement. You can't expect Christians to believe that "getting married" is the endgame when activist follow successful votes with attacks on churches.

More than anything let me state here that gay marriage, to me, is first and foremost a STATES issue and NOT a Federal one. To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship.

An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way.

Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those who pray before the start of sporting event should be allowed to redefine the NFL or NBA as churches.

The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due.

This is where civil unions take the lead. Partnered with medical surrogates, power of attorney and other provisions, a gay couple would probably be better covered and bound than most married couples. In fact, I'd rather see these legal documents become a requirement, but that's another topic all together.

Forcing their perspective, always crying "homophobe" or playing the victim card will NEVER result in any changes. Attacking Christians or forcing churches to marry gay couples isn't going to win support. Marginalizing the black community with inappropriate comparisons to the "Civil Rights Movement" isn't going to garner any favor.

Maybe you disagree with me, but maybe you can understand where so many folks are coming from.

SPECIAL NOTE: I purposefully left the children our of the debate. One could write pages and expand on statements that I've made here, but I've tried to be simplistic and straight to the point. As a father of five children, I'm too biased to even speak on the effects of Kevin Jennings2 and the Gay Tolerance in school movement. I find it divisive for the government, school board or even my Pastor, to DICTATE to me how I'm going to raise my kids and there's NO WAY I'd even try to defend their tactics.



Press release on Maine lawsuit against Don Mendell:


  1. In response to a criticism that I faced today, I wanted to address a few things. First, universally, the blog is my opinion. No matter how strong, forceful or otherwise it sounds, I'm no journalist or news personality. Telling you how and what I think, feel, see and perceive is just that -- the world as I see it. I'd hope you'd do the same.

    Secondly, the biggest criticism of this post in particular is that my "takes" are hyperbole and don't represent the mainstream gay movement.

    I'm not trying to express my approval or disapproval of gay marriage here. I think it's only to fair to analyze why 31 our of 31 votes by the people have failed (again IMHO)

    But I disagree with the premise that the examples I gave as "fringe" or an exception that we can or should ignore.

    The lawsuit against Don Mendell in Maine was filed by NOM, the National Organization of Marriage; the above posted comment was the Iowa Attorney General -- neither of these examples were fringe.

    In 2004 Massachusetts Justices of the Peace either recognized gay marriage or resigned (that was under Mitt Romney); in New Jersey a church was forced to allow a civil union ceremony on their private property.

    Is this a universal risk?

    I don't know. But the concerns and the lawsuits are for legit and concern many of the voters who may feel pressured to support gay marriage or else.

  2. Brandon, I agree with you that it's a religious issue. My problem is accepting that a religious tenet is represented so strongly by our government. Number 1, the government shouldn't be promoting religion in any shape or form. Number 2, If the government chooses to become involved, then it should be in favor of the freedom, nay, the 'rights' of the people.
    You may agree with my premise, but I didn't see the specifics of that particular argument.