Barack Obama said consistently throughout the election that he’s against gay marriage. Wink. Wink. I didn’t believe him. Neither did his voters. I still don’t believe him. Especially after his acceptance speech in Chicago when he spoke of rights of all people and pointedly mentioned gays.
Picking Rick Warren to give the prayer is throwing a “clever” bone to the moderate middle and the Christian conservatives. Remember, people, 85% of American citizens believe in God. Nearly 100% besides the fringe lefties view Rick Warren and Joel Olsteen as the Wal-Mart of religion–everyone shops there, everyone buys. View them as red-pronged devils if you want, but anyone who knows about the evangelical movement knows that the purges won’t come from these mega churches.
Here’s another thing: blacks are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. How do the Prop 8 folks think that law passed when a 1/2 black man was on the ticket? Black people had to vote for the President and then go and choose to vote for Prop 8. It wasn’t a passive choice. The fact is that most blacks do not view gay marriage as a civil rights issue. So gays can get all hot and bothered about the mean Mormons and evil evangelicals but there’s a whole race of people who know oppression when they see it and they don’t see it.
What is really offensive to me, though, is that I don’t believe that Obama is against gay marriage at all. The prayer deal is no skin off his nose. It’s a win-win. He appeals to the vast middle and burns little political capital to do so. Oh sure, the gay brigade is peeved, but their rancor will calm down once they see the gay-friendly policies roll out of this administration. And then it will be the stupid moderate middle who will be shocked. But Barack Obama had Rick Warren pray! But Barack Obama said he was against gay marriage!
Uh huh. Mr. Obama has said many things to get himself elected and he’ll say and do many more things to seem appealing. But the real proof is in the pudding and the pudding ain’t the prayer at the inauguration. It’s symbolic. Remember Maya Angelou boring the entire country with her inaugural poetry? It was symbolic. Black people swooned and saw themselves in Bubba. Bah. Bill Clinton was seizing the moment to make a statement. A year or two later he was slashing welfare benefits.
A year or two from now, we’ll find out what Barack Obama really believes because we’ll have actions to judge him by and I don’t mean the kind of symbolic emptiness that Rick Warren represents. We’ll see proof of his beliefs whatever they might be. The fact is, no one knows for certain, right now, what that means.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
Michelle Malkin reports:
So, this is “progress?” eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users.
The solution to these lawsuits is simple: Start going after every “Rainbow” (aka monochromatic) coalition and force diversity. Gay resort? Sue ’em. Gay only hotel? Sue ’em. Gay porn website? Sue ’em. If they don’t have services, you know soft-focused Christian interludes, spas, hotels, etc., they’re not being diverse.
Will the attempt of the gay activists to impose equality through the courts never cease?
Not content with the numerous websites offering to match him with a male partner, a gay New Jersey man sued eHarmony, a dating service catering to Christians, because it would not match him with a male partner.
I guess maybe I should sue to make sure they provide services for Jews. And while I’m at it, maybe we’ll have a Christian sue Jdate, “The Leading Jewish Singles Network.”
This is nothing more than a nuisance lawsuit. He just felt hurt because a website offered dating services for heterosexuals, but not for him. His plea for equality has succeeded. With the help of the New Jersey Attorney General, he forced eHarmony to settle.* It will now offer a companion site for same-sex matches.
eHarmony has now lost its freedom to offer the kind of dating services its founder wished to provide. Commenting on a similar suit well over a year ago, I wrote:
The issue here is freedom. It’s a shame that in their zeal to root out all discrimination (or perceived discrimination), some gay activists seek to undermine the freedom of others. Their freedom to speak as they will, to associate with whom they choose and to seek romance with the types of people with whom they hope to find intimacy.
Just as eHarmony should be free to focus on heterosexual romance, so should gay.com be free to promote gay relationships.
These kind of suits make my blood boil. Ditto for women who want access to certain sorts of men’s clubs. People should be able to form groups based on any diverse characteristic they want. It’s called FREEDOM. It may not be politically correct. It may be a stupid group. But that’s what freedom is all about–you’re as free to be an idiot as you are to be smart. It’s up to you. Well, it should be.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News and The Houston Chronicle
So, I’m reading this very good, thorough article by Neil Swidey of the Boston Globe about what makes a person gay. It cites the limited research that has been done (mostly on men, lesbianism is less studied) and concludes that no one knows for sure why, but it looks like genetics and uterine environment play a part in creating homosexuality.
This is a tricky subject. In fact, it pains me to even write about it. I have gay friends who I love very much. I don’t want them harassed or hurt. I remember two boys from High School who were clearly homosexual and they weren’t persecuted, thankfully. It was bad enough to see their relative social isolation. I have had friends who have made themselves sick by staying in the closet.
Conversely, I know men who have selfishly gotten married, because they wanted the legitimacy of heterosexual marriage and/or wanted children, and have given their wives STDs or left their women feeling like they were defected because of non-interest. These angry fellas eventually came out, but blazed a destructive path along the way.
It has been my experience that there is very little that can be done about who a person is attracted to. I know two very religious men who struggle with this whole deal. They feel the homosexual act is morally wrong, but I suspect that neither one is winning the war of the flesh. Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know.
And yet, it seems that for the sake of society’s health, a line needs to be drawn around the ideal. By doing that though, some behavior is outside the lines. The ideal, for a healthy society, has been a monogamous heterosexual relationship where destructive things like alcohol, drug, and sex abuse, gambling, and other addictions don’t enter relationship. That would make homosexuality outside the lines.
Given that, does it matter why someone has a certain sexual orientation? There have always been, and always will be homosexual people. (Unless the hope of all this research is to find a genetic magic bullet to engineer non-gay children.) Some will resist homosexuality behaviorally for moral or social reasons. Some will enter the lifestyle because to not live that way feels unaligned with one’s true self. No matter, homosexuality is outside the ideal religiously, societally and even evolutionarily speaking.
To me, this is where tolerance enters. While certain behaviors might not be preferred, proscribing them would cause greater harm. In a free society, people have a right to self-determination. There should be a lot of latitude given to people to define what that means. The rest is between man and Maker.