Rick Santorum Gets It Right For Once

From a fund-raising e-mail:

This is a ruling which, if left undisturbed, means that Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims who see marriage as the union of husband and wife, and view sexual activity as best confined to marriage so defined, are in the exact position as racists under California law.

Exactly. People who hate others simply because of their sexuality are EXACTLY like people who hate others simply because of their race. There is no difference.

Hate Breeds Hate

Kudos go to the Broward County School Board, for passing a strong anti-bullying policy aimed at protecting GLBT students. This is a good step in the right direction and is something that needs to be more widely pursued.

This is also another good reason to oppose Amendment 2. If we further enshrine hatred in the state's constitution, we publicly declare that hatred towards homosexuals is legitimate and acceptable in society. Children who hear that message and already dislike GLBT children and teens are likely to engage in more bullying and hateful behavior. More GLBT children and teens are going to have their self-esteem and mental health assaulted. These things can't be allowed to happen.

Why They're Wrong, Part 7

So many of their arguments are just plain untrue:

Changing the definition of marriage, which has stood the test of time throughout human history until recent decades, is anything but conservative.

People like James A. Smith Sr., the author of this article, contend that marriage comes from God and has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman. This couldn't be further from the truth.

For instance:

The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself. Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage.

Marriage existed before all Christian beliefs and traditions, so how could it come from the Christian God? The Greeks and Romans, with their many, many Gods, had marriage, so clearly the origins aren't quite what people like Smith suggest.

Similarly, the idea that marriage has always been between one man and one woman ignores all available evidence. Polygamy was incredibly common throughout world history and is still common in some parts of the world today.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry....

Plural marriages have been common in the history of Africa. Indigenous African religions have usually permitted it, as does Islam. Even many Christian churches in Africa have tolerated polygamy, although this stance has been changing: in May 2008, for example, the Anglican archbishop of Nigeria warned congregants to discontinue the practice....

Polygamy is encouraged in states such as Sudan, and is very common in West Africa (Muslim and traditionalist)....

Since the Han Dynasty, technically, Chinese men could have only one wife. However, throughout the thousands of years of Chinese history, it was common for rich Chinese men to have a wife and various concubines. Polygyny is a by-product of the tradition of emphasis on procreation and the continuity of the father's family name. Before the establishment of the Republic of China(Taiwan), it was lawful to have a wife and multiple concubines within Chinese marriage. An emperor, government official or rich merchant could have up to hundreds of concubines after marrying his first wife, or tai-tai....

The Chinese culture of Confucianism and thus the practice of polygyny spread from China to the areas that are now Korea and Japan. Before the establishment of the modern democratic mode, Eastern countries permitted a similar practice of polygyny....

After the Communist Revolution in 1949, polygamy was banned. This occurred via the Marriage Act of 1953....

In Hong Kong, polygamy was banned in October 1971. However, it is still practised in Hong Kong and Macau....

The Hebrew Bible indicates that polygyny was practised by the ancient Hebrews. Though the institution was not extremely common it was not particularly unusual and was certainly not prohibited or discouraged by the Bible. Nowhere in the Torah is monogamy established as a rule or even a desirable principle. The Bible mentions approximately forty polygamists, including such prominent figures as Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Moses, David and King Solomon, with little or no further remark on their polygyny as such....

As noted above, in the biblical days Jewish men were allowed more than one wife and concubinage (wives with less status) was also practised....

While the New Testament does not explicitly mention or ban polygamy, verses that teach on leadership (discussed below) forbid multiple marriage for church leaders; these verses are often interpreted to mean that marriage is between only one man and one woman....

In Islam, polygamy is allowed, with the specific limitation that men can only have up to four wives at any one time....

Both polygamy and polygyny were practised in ancient, medieval and early-modern times, among many sections of Hindu society....

I'm not suggesting that polygamy should be legal or is morally correct, just pointing out the verifiable fact that it has always been a common thing and that the claims that marriage has always been the same are simply nonsensical and are nothing more than a justification to encourage hate.

Bauer Tells the Truth About Hate Movement

It's not really about stopping gay marriage for people like Gary Bauer, the former presidential candidate and professional hate-monger. It's about putting and keeping conservatives in power by exploiting people's fears and hatreds:

Because, considering past precedent and current trends, the ruling may backfire and end up offering substantial electoral advantages to conservative candidates.

Why They're Wrong, Part 6

Any coincidence this guy's name is Ludington, awfully similar to Luddite?

The question has been asked whether Virginia will honor homosexual "marriages" performed elsewhere. I hope and pray that our legislature will have the common sense and decency to prevent that from happening.

Legislatures have no say in such things. Article IV of the United States Constitution makes it quite clear that the "acts and judicial proceedings" of one state have to be recognized by other states. They don't have a choice in the matter, it's required under constitutional law. "Acts and judicial proceedings" has always included marriage, that was part of the point -- you're married in one state, you're married in all states.

But no matter what judges and legislatures decide -- there will never be a "marriage" between two men or two women.

Except, of course, that there already have been such marriages and there will be more in the future.

Marriage is a beautiful concept that was created by God, not government.

Maybe, maybe not. Irrelevant. Governments have control over the recognition of marriage. Several states have begun to actually follow the U.S. Constitution, which doesn't once use the word "straight," and have begun allowing gay citizens the right to marry. The others will follow, too, they have no choice.

It joins two lives together to establish a family, and families provide the core unit where children, the next generation that will lead and protect us, are created and nurtured.

So, married couples without children aren't really married?

And this biblically defined family is the strong foundation upon which our nation was built.

Actually, not even close. Much of our history included legal polygamy and almost the entire early colonization of the East and the Westward expansion was done by men without families. In many of these places in the early days, more women were prostitutes than wives.

Strong families create strong nations, and our culture remained strong because we worked to keep the family pure. For centuries we discouraged marital infidelity, fornication and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, because those acts were harmful to the family and weakened the core of our culture.

If this is what you worked for, you failed. And, in reality, America became its strongest at the same time that infidelity, fornication and out-of-wedlock pregnancies began to expand. There's no direct connection between these things, but a rise in these things didn't slow down the expansion of the country's power in the slightest.

Once homosexual "marriages" are accepted in our courts of law, any group will be able to demand the right to marry.

This is complete nonsense. Gay marriage is implicitly protected under our laws. None of these other things are.

Polygamists, for example, are waiting patiently for the uproar over homosexuals to die down.

More fiction. Polygamists already exist and they don't care about our laws. And our legal system doesn't really try too hard to stop them, either.

Then they will take their demands to court, and with homosexual "marriages" established, our courts will have no legal standing to prevent plural marriages.

Except precedent. Conservatives seem to have no understanding hour our legal system works. Most of it relies upon previous decisions, like those that explicitly banned polygamy.

We must understand that once true marriage has been redefined by activist judges and reinforced by legislatures, all restrictions on marriage must be removed. Otherwise each new group will claim unconstitutional discrimination, and a growing body of case law will support them.

We don't have to understand this at all, this isn't the way the system works. The rules are pretty clear that they only apply to two consenting adults. A judge can't change that. And certainly, the current law doesn't allow any of this to apply to non-adults or those who don't consent. New laws (not new judicial decisions) would be the only way to do that. And nothing will make that happen.

Pedophiles have been fighting around the world for children to be able to give legal sexual consent, and they are succeeding.

Now this guy is leaving the realm of sanity. Legalizing gay marriage in no way connects to legalizing pedophilia. Age of consent laws are on the books and nothing like gay marriage could possibly affect that.

Some states in the U.S. now allow 14- and 16-year-olds to give limited sexual consent and, in some cases, to marry. But if homosexual "marriages" stand, the ages will fall ever lower.

Now, Luddite is just lying. Areas where these things are happening are not because our laws are getting looser and making the age of consent lower, it's because historically these laws were looser than they are now. Historically, states had age of consent laws that were as young as 11 years of age, and 14 was widely the standard. We're moving away from that, not towards it. Gay marriage, by the way, is 100% unrelated to age of consent.

Pedophiles want all age restrictions removed, and again, if we accept homosexual unions, we will have no legal standing against any form of perversion.

Homosexuality isn't a perversion. Pedophilia is. Either way, they aren't connected by anything, legally or otherwise.

And if hate crimes continue to proliferate, we will be guilty of a felony if we object to their behavior.

Sentences like this show this person has no understanding if even basic logic. He's actually saying that if people continue to engage in hate crimes, then it automatically becomes a felony to object to hate crimes? Either that or he so doesn't understand the English language he can't even construct a valid sentence. And this letter was published.

In the early days of Christian Europe and later the United States, marriage was strictly a church function.

And history existed before that. As did marriage. As did homosexuality. As did civilization. Nothing has changed any of that. In the early days of Europe, polygamy was just fine in most places.

A man and a woman were joined together in the church, married in the sight of God, family and friends -- not government. Births, deaths, baptisms and divorces were recorded there as well, because only the church officiated over family and personal events.

Maybe, although this is certainly overstated, but in every one of those countries -- and in the U.S. -- the laws are different now, and have been for hundreds of years. Marriages are only legal if they are in some way approved of by government.

The logic Luddite uses is about to go completely off the charts here. In a quick span, he says both:

In our modern world, government has a keen interest in record keeping, and now documents all personal and family events in great detail. The church has been relegated to a symbolic role and can be left out completely, even in marriage, if couples choose a civil ceremony.

and

Yet here we are, stupidly standing by while activist judges destroy the basis of our culture, and indeed, our civilization.

So, we used to do it one way, and we've long ago abandoned that way, but abandoning that way (which we did hundreds of years ago) is going to destroy us right now? Right.

We seem completely oblivious to the fact that our constitution places the power of government in our hands.

Except when it comes to rights. We don't have control over people's rights. We, as a people, don't have the constitutional power to deny freedom of speech. We, also, don't have the right to deny the right to marry.

We hold the power to impeach judges (through our congressional representatives), and to elect those who will legislate for the good of the majority, not a perverse minority.

Right, and neither the majority of the people nor the majority of representatives favors impeaching judges who support gay marriage. So, by this guy's logic, he should respect that decision. I wonder why he isn't following his own logic? And the role of our representatives is not to legislate for the good of the majority, but to legislate for the good of us all. The majority's role is to decide which plan for achieving that good is better when we aren't sure. Their role is not -- and cannot be -- to deny rights to the minority just because they don't like that minority.

History records the stories of good people, like the Germans who watched Nazis take over their government, who have seen their nations destroyed. We still have time to stop our destruction, if we care enough to act.

And in this story, the good people are those that fight against hate mongers who twist law and history in order to deny rights to tax-paying citizens.

Marriage Provides Benefits

One of the reasons that so many people are pushing for the legalization of gay marriage is that marriage is more than just a spiritual or love-based bond. It is also a legal contract. A legal contract that provides certain benefits:

2) Marriage can also result in lower taxes.
3) Sharing a single health insurance plan typically generates savings.
4) Spouses don't pay estate tax.
5) Gifts between spouses are not subject to gift tax.
6) Marriage can offer financial protections in the case of divorce.
7) Social Security benefits go to the surviving spouse.
8) Property is more easily shared between married partners.

The article above has more details on these legal benefits provided by marriage, currently not available to unmarried gay couples.

Why They're Wrong, Part 5

This guy gets really creative:

No judge, no court, and no civil law can give same-sex couples the two elements of a legal marriage — life and legitimacy. Only through the union of a man and a woman can life be created and only through the sanctity of marriage can legitimacy be established.

Since same-sex union cannot create life, it is the legitimacy — the principle of hereditary right — they seek in the courts and cannot obtain because legitimacy is a birthright. Even innocent children born outside of marriage will always be denied legitimacy. Wars have been fought for hereditary rights for kingdoms and empires.

Most of this is just made up. Of course judges, courts and civil laws can give same-sex couples legal marriage, they already have. Marriage is a human-created thing and it can be anything we define it to be. And we certainly don't define marriage based on hereditary right or birthright. In fact, any person can decide to completely ignore birthright and transfer their wealth upon death to any person -- or cat, apparently -- they want to. It's not only legal to do this, it's a right to do it.

We live in the year 2008, all children are legitimate. The old-fashion "bastard" concept has long gone by the wayside both societally and legally. And while it is true that wars have been fought over hereditary rights, it isn't true that this has been done by any modern, civilized society like the one we live in.

Wicker: I didn't mean to insult blacks, I meant to insult gays

If you remember, a while back a Pastor Hayes Wicker of Naples had this to say about gay marriage:

This is a tremendous social crisis, greater even than the issue of slavery.

Not surprisingly, a lot of people, such as myself had some problems with that statement.

Wicker, for some reason, took umbrage at the outrage against his hate speech. Here's what he said in a letter to the editor:

Recently, couples from diverse denominations gathered to celebrate marriage in the Chapel of First Baptist Church, where I have served as pastor for 16 years. It was particularly part of the statewide support of seniors for Constitutional Amendment #2, which has been placed on the November 4th ballot. We renewed the vows of “holy matrimony” and affirmed that marriage is “the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife” the bedrock institution upon which the family and civil society are built.

Unsupported hyperbole and introductory remarks. Nothing too bad yet.

At that event, I made several remarks regarding the grave dangers facing America if the institution of marriage is redefined and cast aside.

A few years back, George Carlin had a routine where he described that when listening to someone speak you can say to yourself, "he sounds reasonably okay," which is how Wicker started out. Then, all of a sudden, the person will say something that will lead you to the realization that the person is "full of shit." This is that moment in Wicker's letter. See, the root of this type of thing is that Wicker and people like him don't like gay people. For whatever reason, maybe it's hatred of anyone who is "different," maybe it's a nonsensical "gross-out" type of thing, maybe it's closeted fears about one's own sexuality, whatever. The point is that people like Wicker can't just come out and say they don't like gay people, so they mask their hatred in reasonable-sounding langauge. They're still full of shit.

Take the above line, for instance. There is no attempt to "cast aside" marriage, except maybe by Republicans like Vito Fosella and Rush Limbaugh. In fact, attempts to legalize gay marriage not only don't "cast aside" marriage, they seek to make marriage stronger. And while gay marriage would change the definition of marriage, it would be a change for the better. And it's not like that definition has any sacred quality to it. It's a definition that was made up by human beings and human beings can easily change that definition. Wicker goes on:

Opponents to marriage have strategically seized upon those remarks in an attempt to take the focus off the issue of marriage and the danger of permitting the U.S. Courts to reconstruct this most basic human institution.

By definition, people who want more people to be able to get married aren't "opponents" of marriage. To say that is to assume that nobody that reads what you write is more intelligent than a three-year-old. Clearly, if you want more marriage, you are a supporter of marriage. And if one was an opponent of marriage, why would they be trying to take the focus off marriage? Wouldn't they want the focus on the thing they are trying to destroy? Did he even read this letter before he sent it in? And the courts already have the power to define what rights exist and what words like marriage mean. This was written into the original Constitution and affirmed in Marbury v. Madison. The Madison in that case, by the way, was James Madison, the guy who wrote the Constitution, so it's pretty clear that he agreed with the ability of the courts to do this.

I also noted: “If marriage and the home deteriorates, the culture and society will be dissolved."

Gay marriage will not dissolve our culture or society. How do I know? Because we already have gay marriage in Massachusetts. We're still around. Other countries have legalized gay marriage, none of them has dissolved. Heck, if George W. Bush can't destroy America after eight years of actively trying, gay marriage has no chance.

"From the very beginning, according to nature, history, tradition, and the Word of God, marriage has been between a man and a woman.”

No matter how many times hatemongers repeate this idea, it's still not true. First off, marriage existed long before the Bible, so it wasn't defined by the Christian tradition. Second, and more importantly, the most dominant form of marriage throughout most of history was polygamy. You know Big-Love-one-man-and-as-many-women-as-he-can-get kind of marriage. In much of the world, that was way more prevalent than one-man and one-woman marriage. And, in fact, if you haven't read your Bible lately, there's a whole lot of polygamy in the Old Testament, in particular, and God's just fine with it. Another passage in the book says something about leaving judgment up to God. And if one is a Christian, Jesus made it quite clear what his priorities were. He never mentioned homosexuality. He did, however, mention helping the poor hundreds of times. So, if your community, Pastor Wicker, has any poor people and you are focusing instead on gay people, then you probably need a refresher course in your own religion.

In my remarks I mentioned slavery because it was the defining issue of social justice from the Founding era until the end of the Civil War and even into the 1960’s.

Notice how the post-Civil War period is somewhat of an afterthought to the Pastor -- "even into the 1960's." It's already clear that Wicker knows little to nothing about history, but this makes it even more clear. For most of the era between the end of the Civil War and when the former slaves died, little changed for them. Because of things like sharecropping, Jim Crow, peonage, the prison-work system, etc., most "freed" slaves never knew freedom.

My remarks were not intended to diminish the crucial importance of eliminating slavery and all forms of racism from American culture.

Intended or not, they did. And what is left unsaid here, is that your remarks were intended to diminish gay Americans and meant to increase bigotry towards gay people in American culture. You can't get away anymore with directly attacking black people, so you're moving on to a new group of people to hate.

I am deeply sorry for any hurt that my statement may have caused to anyone affected by the evil stain of slavery.

And totally don't care about the hurt that your statement caused anyone affected by the evil stain of homophobia.

As a Christian, I deeply deplore hatred in all its forms and urge love for all people.

Except, of course, for gay people. That kind of hatred, he loves. A lot.

Radically reconstructing the institution of marriage could readily become the defining issue of social justice in the 21st century, especially if such a radical change occurs through the abuse of power by activist judges.

In addition to his ignorance of history, the Pastor shows a clear misunderstanding of basic English words such as "radical" and "reconstruct." If gay people are allowed to get married, the effect on other marriages is nonexistent. And, checking back with that Bible the pastor claims to love so much, I'll wager that the real defining social justice issue of the 21st century is still poverty.

Even a brief study of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas reveals the dangers of judicial activism to the institution of marriage and to the most basic civil rights of association, free speech and religious liberty.

To come to this ridiculous conclusion, one would have to do a really, really brief study of Lawrence v. Texas. That or be a graduate of the Liberty College law school. It's clear that since Lawrence v. Texas was decided, that marriage, freedom of association, freedom of speech and religious liberty haven't been affected one iota. The law that Wicker favors -- a constitutional ban on gay marriage -- goes much further towards violating these rights. The Constitution doesn't grant a right for straight people to get married. It grants the right to citizens. It also grants the right for you to associate (which includes legal association, such as marriage) with whomever you choose. And what about religions that support gay marriage, wouldn't Wicker's favored law be discriminatory towards those religions? (The answer is yes).

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia rightly indicated that this ruling now defines personhood on the basis of sexuality and has enormous implications for marriage and the home.

The same Scalia who is a big fan of the orgy? (Again, the answer is yes). What are these "enormous implications" we always hear about? They've been talked about so much I wonder what they are? they certainly can't be the other things that Wicker talked about in this letter, since you'd have to be really, really dumb to think that gay marriage would hurt straight marriage, so I wonder what he's really talking about? Maybe the big implication would be that it would be harder for hatemongers to practice their hate?

As in some other countries, those who hold to traditional marriage could be prosecuted for “hate speech” if they publicly speak out.

Ah, I was right. All he really cares about is protecting his right to be a bigot. And, again based on history, "traditional" marriage would be polygamy. Also, I'd suggest that the Pastor look up the legal definition of "hate speech," since it differs with what he is saying here.

Destroying the institution of marriage will affect every person of every race, every family, every local community and state, every school district, legislature, courtroom, classroom and board room in America. Such a watershed issue cannot be diminished in its significance.

Again, there will be no destruction. And even if there were, it certainly wouldn't affect every person. It wouldn't affect nonmarried people much at all. And it wouldn't affect anyone who really loved their spouse, since that love would really kind of go beyond a ceremony or piece of paper or contract. True love is in the heart and in the mind, not in the Pastor's strange definitions of words. And it's incredibly clear that gay marriage would have no effect on school districts, legislatures, courtrooms, classrooms or boardrooms. In fact, there isn't even any form of stretched logic to validate that claim. It's just plain nonsense. You can, it must be said, diminish the significance of a watershed issue by engaging in nonsensical, inflated hyperbole.

It is incumbent on the people of Florida and every state to do all they can to make a clear constitutional statement of intention in support of the traditional definition of marriage as the union of only a man and woman.

Actually, no such thing is incumbent, particularly, since that isn't the traditional definition of marriage. Besides, such a state law would clearly conflict with the United States Constitution, so pursuing this is a waste of time and resources that could go towards better things. Like that whole "helping out the poor" thing. If you didn't notice, Pastor, the economy sucks and people are really in real trouble. Not fantasyland trouble based on things that are actually already illegal in Florida.

While we offer love to all, may true patriots and lovers of truth never turn a deaf ear or blind eye to evil as once happened during those years of slavery.

Again, the Pastor is having problem with basic definitions here. The word "all" would include gay people. "Never," as in "never turn a deaf ear or blind eye," would include bigotry towards gay people. History has shown, though, that people who call themselves true patriots almost never are. And, really, does anyone "love" the truth? The truth quite frequently hurts. And it quite frequently sucks. Like the truth that Pastor Hayes Wicker and his supporters are hatemongers who are seeking to advance their own radical political agenda by attempting to marginalize gay American citizens.

Calderin Says No on 2

Wasting no time, Michael Calderin, candidate for state house district 119 has responded to our challenge to come out against Amendment 2:

No on 2.

It's a waste of the state's time and resources, both banning gay marriage -- which isn't legal in Florida anyway -- and eliminating the rights of straight Floridians, including many seniors who live with an unmarried partner.

Whether you're for or against gay marriage doesn't even matter. It's already not allowed. Whether this amendment becomes part of Florida's Constitution or not won't change that.

What it will do is create more bureaucracy, interfere with people's lives, and invite expensive lawsuits.

Creating laws should be about priorities. How would *you* prioritize something that's redundant, intrusive, and expensive?

The best way to tell him thanks? Contribute here.