Anti-Homosexuality Bigotry’s Last Stand in Tennessee

Just days after a Gallup poll revealed that 53% of Americans no longer oppose same sex marriages, Tennessee’s State Senate passed a measure that would make it illegal for public school teachers in the state to discuss homosexuality with elementary and middle school students contending such discussion is not age appropriate.

Here’s the latest as reported by the New York Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/05/21/2011-05-21_dont_say_gay_bill_passes_in_tennessee_senate_would_ban_teachers_from_discussing_.html

The tide has changed. During the 2000 Presidential election, the public learned that one of Vice President Richard and Lynn Cheney’s daughters was a Lesbian. The public had become used to major figures in entertainment being homosexual from tennis stars Billy Jean King, one of the first to openly reveal her orientation and Martina Navratilova likewise being lesbian. Figures like Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Manchester, and Elton John maintained their popularity despite their orientation. Rational people quickly began to discard obscene notions that homosexuality is learned, is contagious, or the result of a bad upbringing. Churches too began to change their stance including a branch of the Episcopal Church which would ordain openly homosexual clergy.

In 2011, society has gotten to the point where just about all arguments against homosexuality now seem conspicuously bigoted and church doctrine that would turn against homosexuality seems antiquated and arbitrary.

One of the so-called Biblical guns in found in Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

If this is the case against homosexuality, society appears far more tolerant toward some of the other “sinful” expressions noted. Other passages, some from the Old Testament are even more ambiguous.

Once the issue of sexual preference is reexamined by constitutional standards, discrimination against homosexuals cannot stand as it clearly by its very nature violates equal protection by law.

Prejudices die a long and painful death. Certainly a strong racist component and prejudice against certain nationalities became all too apparent in the Obama birth certificate issue. Can anyone imagine that if Barack Obama were white or his name was Jerry Rice or Bill Cosby, the shameful “birther” phenomenon would have emerged?

In 2012, it’s time to eliminate all legal barriers which allow discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. The Tennessee action seems like that of backwoods yokels and not rational thinkers in the 21st century.

.

A Little Humor -- The Right Medicine for Insane Homophobia

Let's hear it for George Takai, an unapologetic openly gay actor to find just the right type of humor in reaction to Tennessee's bigotted proposed legislation.



Sometimes being different is a wonderful difference!

Talk about it at: rightmindedfellow@comcast.net

,

Westboro Bigots Come to Crab City -- AGAIN!!!

Can anybody tell us what is keeping some people who've had enough of their bullshit from beating the crap out of the Westboro Baptist Church. (We feel horrible tagging "Baptist Church" into their name since they have nothing to do with the real Baptist church).

Now they intend to picket the Funeral of a local Baltimore County FIREFIGHTER who lost his life protecting others in the Hillendale community.

Let's make something clear, what they are doing is not exercising freedom of religion. They are of the same status as the Ku Klux Klan or the American Nazi Party. They exploit the suffering of others particularly at funerals as a vehicle to promote their hate agenda with their obsessive hatred of homosexuals and their contempt for all efforts to help these most deserving citizens gain full civil rights.

Anyone who would taunt the grieving family a firefighter who gave his life in the service of his community is beneath contempt and quite frankly forfeits the right to any kind of civility society might normally offer. That such hurting families would even have to imagine the chance of these loathsome cretins.

If the law cannot use its power to protect private citizens perhaps its time for citizens to look out for themselves and if the law should intervene let all hell break lose.

Nobody has the right to terrorize, intimidate, and disrupt the gathering of private citizens whose right of assembly engaged in civil conduct should be compromised by mean spirited vile haters who use the pretense of alleged religious expression or political discourse as a shield for their treachery.

If concerned on lookers were to beat the shit out of these creepy losers, such a response would not just be justified but applauded.  A few bloody noses and bruises would only begin to give these lowest of the low our society has among its ranks the kind of REAL justice they deserve.

I am heterosexual, but if there were a WBC member present, I'd want to embrace the nearest member of my gender and give that person a great big hug and a kiss just to drive those crazies nuts and to stand in solidarity with the many wonderful people I've met who have sexual preferences different than mine.

.

A Conservative Defends "Same Sex" Marriage and Ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

A “Conservative” for Same Sex Marriage and Ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

This writer’s opinion on this issue has been a long time coming. As a heterosexual, homosexuality is something that will always seem strangely alien to me as I am just not wired to identify with those feelings. My outlook on homosexuality has evolved over many years being something of a gay basher in high school to increasingly developing understanding and tolerance to this, the final barrier, consenting to the notion of same sex marriage.

My first revelation was that gay bashers were far crazier than anything I could ascribe to homosexuals even the ones who engage in the bizarre San Francisco kind of conduct which is probably more a reflection on San Francisco than is it sexual preference. From there I realized I had lots of friends and fellow workers who were “gay” or “lesbians.” They were just real good folks who one would never suspect – so much for don’t ask, don’t tell. How can we exclude people willing to take a bullet for their country over an issue like this?

I fully realize there are passages in The Bible which would appear to strongly condemn homosexuality. However, often in the same passage or elsewhere there are strong condemnations against adultery, promiscuity, and other lustful behavior. So if homosexuality is so awful, where’s the passion about the other things? It might be healthy if there were much more condemnation of having children out of wedlock. Let’s remember that we are also taught, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Let’s now add a social context. What kind of “sinful” behavior clearly has negative effects on others regardless of beliefs or morals? Conduct that results in not supporting a family or the needs of a child is surely far worse than what someone does in his or her private life or with another consulting adult.

This leads to the crux of the decision. How does same sex marriage do harm to others? How would permitting such affect this writer’s life in any manner whatsoever? Meanwhile, for the participants in a same sex relationship, the bond of marriage could be the ultimate affirmation of that which those two people hold most dearly. Why should someone else destroy their pursuit of happiness as they desire to do?

The only concern that is hard to resolve is the roll of children who have homosexual parents. Would not having two committed parents have benefits over a single parent home? The only harm is the extent to which kids might be bullied by homophobic other children. Has not our culture attempted to teach tolerance of same-sex relationships? Clearly, though a lot of values are borne from the home.

There’s only one other argument that surfaces from time-to-time, if marriage can be stretched to be inclusive of more than the traditional man and woman, where does society draw the line? Could courts then rule polygamy is okay? Could adult/child relationships be rationalized? If we employ the “do no harm” standard, those concerns should be addressed. The political process can mess up anything so ultimately then the responsibility rests in the voter. Where same sex marriage has gone to the ballot, there have been mixed results.

With all these considerations in mind, while it is far from a front burner issue in this writer’s list of political issues, both same sex marriage and eliminating restrictions against homosexuals serving in the military should be realized.

There’s a dark little secret. Some people with same sex preferences are politically conservative but might possibly ally their passions elsewhere because the conservative political factions have made them unwelcome.

Our society is full of sexual hang-ups that would be better served if all of us could discuss and debate more openly and not hide behind the barriers of outmoded morality or shrouds of political correctness.



.

Same Sex Marriage -- The Big Question

The voters in California had spoken amending their state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. 52% of the California voters supported Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage amendment. This week, the measure was struck down by the first level of the Federal Judiciary. Judge Vaughan Walker, an openly homosexual judge, issued a 137 page ruling nulifying the law based primarily on the Federal Consitition's "equal protection under the law" provision.

The measure will now go on the the 9th District Court of Appeals, the most Liberal court in the nation's appeal system, and finally the Supreme Court itself will make the ultimate decision. Right now, the Supreme Court might appear slightly inclined to support the measure, but it will ultimately depend on what they determine the decisive grounds are.

While this writer has mixed feelings about this issue, more and more, one question becomes inescapable.  If the government were to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples, how would it impact this writer's life?  The answer is probably not at all. For all those who fervently oppose Same Sex marriage, be honest. How will same sex marriage affect your life?

Right Minded Fellow has long maintained what adults do behind closed doors in their private lives is nobody else's business. A state license might be a little more than that, but probably just a little. Why should it be anybody else's business what two people seek to do on their own? How would such behavior be intrusive in any way?

There surely are verses from The Bible that seem to argue clearly homosexuality is forbidden, but there are many things the Bible does not condone that are legal.  From strictly a matter of law, on what Constitutional basis can a law against same-sex marriage stand?

Only if both houses of Congress and 3/4's of the states vote by 3/4's margins could a Constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage be approved. That won't happen.

Whether the tide has turned in 2010 or not, same-sex marriage will be legal through out the United States sooner or later.

How does society benefit from continuing to fight what appears to be the inevitable?

Holland, Michigan -- Community in Uproar over Basic Anti Sexual Preference Discrimination Ordinance

Holland, Michigan, a postcard perfect small city on Lake Michigan’s Eastern Shore is the latest city where the battle lines are drawn on the issue of discrimination against homosexuals. The city, nicknamed “Tulip City” for its lavish flower gardens resembling the town’s namesake, Holland (as in the Netherlands) originally settled by Dutch Calvinists, has a population of 35,000. City authorities sought to pass a simple ordinance banning discrimination due to sexual preference or gender identity, what has become an accepted practice through out much of the country. The opposition in this case is fighting the measure with especially spirited zeal backed by the Family Research Council and allegedly Request Food, a local company, whose CEO, Jack DeWitt, has been outspoken on such subjects. Meanwhile, as the measure advances through the city's legal system, similar ordinances are already in place in nearby cities Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids.


The advertisement is printed under the banner, “Is Homosexuality a Civil Rights Issue?” then go on to proclaim, “Pro-homosexual activists want you to believe so. They want Holland to give homosexuals special protections under employment discrimination laws.”

Where are the “special protections?” The proposal addresses forbidding discrimination. They then go on to assert it is not a matter of civil rights arguing, “Most civil rights lawsgrant protections based on characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, and innocuous (race, color, national origin, and sex) or protected in the Constitution religion). None of these is true of the choice to engage in homosexual behavior.”

Their inference is clear; homosexuality is a choice reflective of some clearly unacceptable values and motives. They then attempt to present a series of popular “myths” concerning homosexuality and refute it with what they claim to be “facts.”

The myths they cite are:

-People are born gay.

-Sexual orientation can never change.

-Ten percent of the population is gay.

-Homosexuals do not experience a higher level of psychological disorders than heterosexuals.

-Homosexuals are seriously disadvantaged by discrimination.

We are not going to go into a big long dissertation on the difference between fact and opinion or decry why so little of the public knows the difference. (Hint – poor public schools incapable of teaching critical thinking skills...) Likewise, we’re not going to provide all the information concerning the validity of these so-called myths much less offer points of debate against the so-called facts Family Research Council. Most of them speak for themselves and embody the very essence of the kind of kind of thinking which justifies anti-gay bigotry.

Why should this discussion ever go any further than why is the private conduct between two consenting adults anyone else’s business? Could anything be a more basic civil right than that? For those who’d argue that hiring homosexuals could create a distraction around the workplace, what would a homosexual do that could rival the distraction of a scantily clad female program in a low cut top or short dress or skirt? Of course, we’ve heard the self-established he-man types talk about what they would do to some “faggot” if one ever made an advance on those guys. Hmm, none of them seem to ever convince anyone else such an advance ever took place. It seems like observation would reveal most such advances are heterosexual white men “hitting on” women they find attractive.

For folks who throw up their hands and don’t know how to weigh in on this subject, in their day to day experience what is more frightening than the virulent expression of anti-homosexual prejudices – loud and boisterous “gay bashing.”

While it might be very difficult for a person to understand another person’s sexual preference than that of his or her own, isn’t the overriding virtue to “live and let live?” We must also ask ourselves how much of person’s private life is another person’s business. Surely, there is much about homosexuality we do not understand. There’s plenty about heterosexuality that is a mystery too. Perhaps some of it is part of our society’s subconsciousness based on some Puritanical heritage.

While the debate on same-sex marriages will surely continue on many levels, we’re long past the stage where a person should ever be denied the fruits of society or employment on the basis of sexual preference.

Judge Rules Anti-Gay Religious Beliefs No Excuse

Welcome to the 21st century. A Christian graduate student at Eastern Michigan University refused to counsel homosexuals on the grounds of her religion and belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. She sued the university claiming her first amendment rights on freedom of religion were being violated. Despite the support of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, US District Court Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed the lawsuit.


The college argued in favor of her expulsion that her conduct violated the American Association’s “Code of Ethics” and school policies. Conversely, David Frech, senior counsel for the ADF contended, “Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs. To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court, uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”

Judge Steeh clarified his ruling stating: ““Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values… In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”

The claims of Ms. Ward’s freedom of speech being violated are bogus. She is free to state her conscious and practice her religion. However, when the requirements of a job or academic requirement necessitates as part of its fulfillment, performing specific tasks the organization is professionally expected to deliver, it is unacceptable for students or employees to pick and choose what parts of their assigned duties they will or will not perform particularly if the institution is a state agency or is involved in providing for the public health.

If the requirements of a job or program require certain specific behaviors, one applying to join cannot pick and choose what parts of the assignment he or she will or will not do. The job requirements should be clearly defined and upon accepting admittance or employment, the candidate must understand it is that person’s responsibility to execute those tasks the candidate is assigned.

State agencies serve all citizens regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. The same holds true for the public practice of medicine and psychology. There have been cases in the past, for instance, where pharmacists have refused to fill patients’ prescriptions such as birth control pills or Viagra because they claim doing so forces them to violate their religious beliefs. For such pharmacists to refuse to provide that which a doctor has determined proper treatment for a patient simply is not a domain where a pharmacist’s judgment or values may interfere unless obvious cases if for instance a prescribed drug would have negative interactions with another drug the patient is using.

The logic behind the law suit against the University of Michigan would be compatible with situations like a Muslim refusing to teach Christian or Jewish students because they are infidels. Or grocery store clerks refusing to ring up sales for meat products because their new age spirituality indicates they should be vegetarians. There have already been cases of Islamic grocery clerks refusing to handle bacon since pork is forbidden by Sharia law.

The message to folks who don’t like situations like that of Ms. Ward, the pharmacist who refuses to fill birth control prescriptions, or Muslim who refuses to handle pork products, if those things are part of their job or school training and they cannot bring themselves to put their feelings aside for the sake of professionalism, they should seek other employment.

The first amendment freedom of religion states “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free expression thereof…” is not carte blanche for one to use religious beliefs as grounds to not do what is required of them professionally. No one is forced to do a particular job. In one’s private and social life, one is free to do a lot of things that are not acceptable on the job. How many jobs would allow a person to wear a tank top and baggy shorts to the office?

Homosexuality might be the last frontier of civil rights and some issues are still being debated such as same-sex marriages when marriage sanctifies the special relationship between a man and woman as the foundation of the family and assurance of two parents being responsible partners in procreation. While that issue remains unresolved, it is clear what a person does in his private life is nobody’s business but his own. The sexual preferences and desires of two consenting adults is nobody’s business except for those of the participants.

While there are passages within the Bible which would appear to condemn homosexuality, for the whole history of Christianity, Christian societies have found it appropriate to define certain aspects of scripture as they see fit. Additionally, the Bible is the product of reporting events that happened over 2000 years ago when so much of human knowledge about the workings of the laws of chemistry, physic, and biology were not known. The Bible has historically been used as justification to subjugate women and support racism. Those notions are rejected today. Regardless of where one stands on homosexuality, how many Christians today would support the bigotry and intolerance of the Westboro Baptist Church?

In the real world, all people are faced with challenges reconciling their faith with day-to-day demands of the material world. If one’s understanding of his or her faith is not consistent with the requirements of a desired profession, it is that individual’s responsibility to find a vocation which can be practiced without threatening one’s faith. Since issues like Ms. Ward’s are not a problem for most people, maybe she needs to reevaluate her faith and perhaps look at her beliefs from a broader prism.

Philadelphia versus Boy Scouts: Tough Issues

Philadelphia Court Case on Boy Scouts Anti-Homosexual Stance: Bad Law but…

The City of Philadelphia took legal action against the Boy Scouts who have had a long established sweetheart lease for property in Philadelphia on which they’ve erected a scouting facility for which they pay one dollar a year rent. The city contends that because the scouts excludes homosexuals, they are violating the city’s antidiscrimination laws thus should pay $200,000 a year in rent. The Boy Scouts have enjoyed this special arrangement for over seventy years.

Because the Boy Scouts are a “membership” organization, the Supreme Court ruled that the scouts can exclude homosexual members. The Scouts maintain that their right to due process and free speech would be violated and such a move would make operating within the city of Philadelphia unsustainable.

The jury has yet to rule.

The issue of homosexuality is a difficult one, but clearly, society’s values are changing. Perhaps under membership provisions the Scouts are entitled to exclude homosexuals.

As a private organization, the Scouts are free to pursue what policies they see reasonably fit to maintain their organization and serve their members. However, how would society react if they excluded members by race? That they are enjoying a sweetheart deal on their rent shows them a highly esteemed organization, which they are.

The Scouts benefit boys tremendously teaching them skills, helping them build relationships and positive values. However, their stance on homosexuality is out of step with the times and hurtful.

Surely, there is an unfounded fear that homosexual Scouts or troop leaders might make homosexual advances against susceptible young men, and that they might encourage or influence Scouts to chose a homosexual lifestyle. It almost plays into the mania that homosexuality is contagious.

Today, we know homosexuality is not a choice. It’s simply the way some people are. People don’t chose to homosexual, nor can people be influenced to become gay. The only possibility is if homosexuals are allowed to be honest with their orientation, they might encourage others who are in denial or in the closet to come forward and be honest about their sexuality.

We must consider the age of boys in scouts covers the time in a young man’s life when he first starts developing his adult sexual orientation. Puberty is a difficult time, but as adolescence reaches its conclusion one’s identity is generally quite apparent.

There is nothing wrong with maintaining rules of discipline that sexually oriented behavior on the behalf of one Scout toward another is unacceptable. The fears of what homosexual Scouts could bring simply are hysterical notions based on outmoded concepts. For the good of what Scouts have to offer, it’s time for them to step up and join the 21st century. Greater lessons might be taught if Scouts deal with issues like gender preference in an open and constructive manner.