The Christian Agenda Exposed Part II

story
The Christian Agenda Exposed Part I

In Michigan, they're pushing to eliminate domestic partnership benefits. (story) In California, they're pushing to ban same sex marriage and civil unions, eliminate domestic benefits, and deny children of same sex couples the same legal protections every other child is afforded. (story).

In Massaachusetts, they're willing to throw out a refernedum that would give voters a chance to ban same sex marriage, but leave provisions for civil unions in favor for an outright ban on same sex marriage and civil unions.

Who are they? Various Christian groups and "concerned" citizens. In all three states, the leading opposition groups are headed by an organization usually having some positive name that includes key words like "family" and "concerned" conjoined with official sounding terms like "institute" or "research". These organizations all have their roots with the national organization, The Family Research Council, a known homophobic organization.

The Michigan Family Institute is no exception.

In 2004, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state's constitution allowed same sex marriages and gay couples could not be denied the basic civil right to marry, the Michigan Family Institute kicked into high gear. They worked hard to gain enough signatures to put a referendum through the state legislature that would ban same sex marriage, but allow civil unions.

Call it panic mode. They needed something fast to counter the gay threat to marriage.

On September 14, the state legislature is set to vote on the referendum to allow it to be put before the voters. Not surprisingly, in the almost two years since the Christian groups pushed for the referendum, they are now abandoning it. In their own words, "This amendment must be defeated."

They shout that commandment in bold face letters on their website followed by a step-by-step plan to defeat the 2006 referendum and get the more restrictive 2008 referendum in its place. They've had almost two years to come up with an alternative that not only bans same sex unions, but would also ban civil unions. The implication, of course, is that same sex couples would then be legally denied many of the state benefits of being married - including domestic partnership and legal protection for the children of same sex couples.

The argument has never been about protecting marriage. It has always been about marginalizing homosexuals to the fringes of society. It has always been about sweeping the gay problem back into the closet - and throwing the key away.

Don't be fooled by their positive spin. The Christian agenda is clear. Demonize homosexuals as a threat to society. Once the threat is established in the minds of the average person, controlling the gay problem becomes easy.

And it will still be socially acceptable to preach against their sins, blame them for the ills of society, and to hate them.

Without the legalized discrimination, more and more people will see their rhetoric for what it is - intolerance, bigotry, and/or hate.

The Christian Agenda Exposed

Related Stories: Michigan Denies Domestic Benefits

CA Supreme Court Affirms Gay Parents' Role

Even though the push for legal, same sex marriage got its start back in the early 1970's, it wasn't until 1993 that the battle began in full force. That was the year that the Hawaii Supreme Court suggested that a ban on same sex marriage may violate the state constitution.

Conservatives and the religious right gathered in full strength. Since then, their battle cry has boiled down to an argument of preserving the sacred institution of marriage and nothing about denying anyone rights.

In 2003, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same sex marriage, a firestorm swept the country. That code phrase for legalized discrimination, "protect the sanctity of marriage" mobilized 11 states to pass constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, only.

"It's not about denying rights," the voters were told. "Gays can enjoy all the rights they want in some form of legal civil union."

Voters bought that cheap slogan hook, line, and sinker. Some still do.

But now the truth of the Christian agenda is being exposed. The same sex marriage arguments are all about rights. No matter what you call a same sex relationship - marriage, civil union, a couple with some marriage rights - the fear of the Christian Right is that those people will become acceptable in society. No society can ever accept that - at any cost.

Now, the Christian Right isn't even bothering to hide their true agenda.

In Michigan last year, voters passed an amendment to the state constitution which read "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Those last six words, or similar union for any purpose, were used to negate the domestic partnership benefits already set into law. While the judge as not yet ruled on the challenge to the legal opinion from the state's attorney general that negated the domestic benefits laws, one of the arguments presented was that the intent of the law had nothing to do with denying benefits to same sex couples. An attorney for the governor of Michigan even presented a brochure put out by backers of the amendment - primarily an offshoot of the group, Focus on the Family - that clearly said the amendment would maintain the status quo of Michigan, i.e. domestic benefit laws weren't in jeopardy.

Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan - a primary backer of the amendment, had another story to tell the reporters. The secondary intent of the amendment, and the purpose of those six words, were to ensure the traditional marriage would be honored "including the provision of taxpayer-financed spousal benefits," he claimed.

He just may be the first person to publically expose the real Christian agenda.

Jumping over to California, the state Supreme court just ruled that same sex couples have the same parental responsibilities as their heterosexual counterparts, including child support and custody rights.

Now one would think this is a clear cut case of protecting the children and has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

Wrong.

After the ruling, Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which opposes gay marriage, said the court's position "goes against nature."

"Despite junk science and frustrating rulings like this, children still need a mother and a father," Thomasson said. "A child does not have two mommies or two daddies; a child comes into this world because she has a mother who gave her egg and a father who gave his sperm."

The court's stand "ignores the self-evident truth that God designed a man and a woman to fit together and participate in the miracle of procreation," he said.

What's he saying? The children of same sex couples are less deserving of protection of the law than children born to a man and a woman.

Still think it's not about keeping homosexuals as second class citizens? Denying them equal footing in our society? Consider this. Opponents of same sex marriage in California are diligently trying to get several referendums on next year's ballot that would roll back many of the gains in domestic benefits.

The Christian agenda is clear. After more than twelve years of lying to the voters, their real goal on the same sex marriage issue has nothing to do with "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and everything to do with sweeping homosexuals back into the closet.

And at least in Michigan and California, at the expense of the children if need be.

A Ray Of Hope?

On a follow up about the two gay Iranian teens who were hung (story):



A ray of hope? An excerpt from an article on 365gay.com covering this story:

Is gay life in Iran as dire as some reports on this case suggest?

According to a new interview with the publishers of the Iranian gay magazine MAHA conducted by the Web site GayRussia.ru, it is not.

The magazine is distributed from inside Iran via e-mail in PDF format. (If it were published on the Web or in traditional magazine format, it likely would be blocked or banned by the government.) The magazine has 600 subscribers.

"After eight months of hard work, eight issues and four supplements have appeared, covering issues such as gays and family, depression among GLBT, a report about lesbians in Iran, etc.," the publishers wrote in the e-mail interview. "MAHA also publishes a separate supplement for gay aid and to help GLBT to find a friend. Today MAHA has two editors, one gay and one lesbian, and MAHA's readers are all over the country and even some Iranian GLBT in exile."
The publishers said gays are no longer routinely persecuted in Iran.

"The regime does not systematically persecute gays anymore, there are still some gay Web sites, there are some parks and cinemas where everyone knows that these places are meeting places for gays," they wrote. "Furthermore it is legal in Iran that a transsexual applies for sex change and it is fully accepted by the government.

"There are some media which sometimes -- not often -- write about such issues. Having said that, the Islamic law, according to which gay punishment is death, is still in force, but it is thought [to be] not much followed by the regime nowadays.

"Thanks to the Internet and contact with the international community, people get the info, and Iran society has changed a lot, and support for GLBT rights is growing in Iran, though we still have a long way to go," the publishers said. "On the whole, we are optimistic about the future as Iran's situation cannot continue [as is] and people are pushing for reforms and changes."

Why NARTH Is a Hate Group

Note: This is a rough draft that some day I'll polish up for my website.

From Narth's own website:

...says Nicolosi. "And, when the research comes in--as indeed it has--showing gays and lesbians to be less psychologically healthy than straights."

"Also, many people coming from a homosexual background have, sadly, spent so many years in self-protection and self-absorption that they have difficulty in giving to others."

"That doesn't make the reality of change any less valid than it does for the alcoholic who returns to drinking, or the anorexic who returns to unhealthy eating patterns." (Reinforces NARTH's position that homosexuality is a disease or disorder that requires treatment.)

"The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of abuse between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships 'is a very serious public health problem.' The study compared the rate of abuse among homosexual men (22%) to the rate of abuse to heterosexual men (8%) and concluded that homosexual men are more violent.

"Unfortunately, the AMA appears to have accepted the unsubstantiated claim that the numerous psychological problems and self-destructive behavior found among persons who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB) are caused by social discrimination. It has ignored substantial evidence that these negative outcomes are related to the homosexuality itself."

Citing Stein (1999, Oxford University Press), they find corroboration in his conclusion that "Even if one's sexual orientation is primarily biological and not a choice, much of what is ethically relevant about being a lesbian or gay man is not biologically based and is not determined, [such as] engaging in sexual acts with a person of the same gender."

"The Concept of Disorder Derives from a Moral Concept" - Subtitle to an article that links homosexuality to pedophilia. The article goes on to explain that the APA ignores moral considerations when determining what is and what is not psychological disorder. In simple terms, if you believe something is morally wrong, then it is a disorder that requires treatment. That is their philosophy with homosexuality - they believe it is morally wrong so they fix it. See above quote.

Ok, you get the idea. Let's face it. Hate groups are smart, today. The KKK doesn't go around saying "The niggers are inferior to Whites." Nope. They couch politically correct language between questionable studies and personal testimonials to "prove" their stance that Black people are inferior to Whites.

Narth uses the same technique. They use professional sounding language to hide their two basic principles:

1. Homosexuality is a disease that can be cured either through "incremental change" to heterosexuality or by celibacy
2. Homosexuality is a moral choice even is a biological component can be proven

They believe homosexuality is caused by one of two factors: either the failure of the self-identified gay to have formed a meaningful relationship early on with his/her same-gender parent or they were victims of childhood sexual abuse.

Both presumptions are easily disputed, especially in today's world where many heterosexual children grow up in single-parent households. Why aren't they all gay?

So yes, NARTH is nothing more than a prejudicial hate group.

More Evidence of Biological Link To Homosexuality

Complete Story
Courtesy Southern Voice

More and more, the evidence seems to point to a biological link to homosexuality.

The interesting point in the above article is that the gay rams' part of the brain that is thought to control the sex drive is half the size of the brains of hetero sheep. A study a couple of years ago in Canada found that the part of the human brain that controls the sex drive was half the size in gay men as opposed to heterosexual men. Another study a few years ago showed a statistically significant correlation between homosexuality and being the second born son. Something like almost 2/3rds of homosexual men were the second born son. Researchers theorized that possibly the mother's body "remembered" giving birth to one male child, so with the second male child, not enough estrogen or estrogen-like hormones were produced to fully "masculinize" the brain. They have found the same effects in the gay rams.

Despite the growing evidence of a biological link, no doubt many Christians will cling to their "love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy.

Translation: gay bashing will be around for a long time.

Two Iranian Gay Teens' Last Day

The last day of life for Mahmoud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18. Both were publically hung for being gay.

Complete Story

Write Your Own Bill

We're still short on participation, so once again, we're running the Write Your Own Bill Campaign again this month. If you wrote your bill last month, there's no need to write one again this month.

If you wrote one in May or June and never received a response from your senators or representatives, you may want to write another one this month. Sometimes you have to repeat yourself a few times before your elected officials hear you.

For those of you who signed up for the semi-monthly newsletter, yes, I'm a few days late. I hope to have it out by mid month.

I do thank everyone who has at least looked at the site. I extend a big hearty thank you to everyone who participated in the campaign and have shown an interest in keeping updated by joining the newsletter mailing list. Feel free to click on the link above and join the newsletter if you haven't already. It's a painless couple of clicks to do.

Teen Sent To Ex-Gay Ministry Update

Zach's back - sort of.

On Aug 1, he posted a new blog entry. In the blog he railed against groups using his blog for their "one-sided (biased) agendas" and that "homosexuality is still a factor in my life" but "not who I am, it never has been".

Ah, yes - the homophobic key word -agenda. People who have followed Zach's blog insist the latest is not his entry. The writing style and "voice" is different. Zach went so far as to delete all prior posts so that there is no record of what he has said - and how he said it - in the past.

He hasn't posted since Aug 1. Hasn't finished his brainwashing training, yet, I reckon.

Aug Reminder: The Aug effort is underway. Read more....

U.S.C. 2257

Note: While this new law doesn't relate to gay marriage, I thought the restriction on the freedom of speech may interest some readers.


A new law that greatly restricts freedom of speech went into effect last June. It lasted ten hours before Attorney General Gonzales put enforcement on hold until Sep 7 while arguments brought before the government by the Free Speech Coalition are heard.

If you own a website and aren't a member of the Coalition, you are subject to enforcement of this law today.

The law requires any primary producer of Internet porn to maintain documentation of the age of any people who appear in the nude. Such strict requirements were always required of the primary producers of porn on the Net or elsewhere.

The law goes one step further. All secondary producers of porn are required to keep the same documentation on hand, too. That means if you post the cover of Debbie Does Dallas on you website, you need to contact everyone pictured on the cover in the nude and obtain and verify their age and id and keep that documentation on hand. If you are selling that movie, you need to get that information from every performer in the movie. In the past, you wouldn't have had to do that because you knew the producers of the movie had already collected the information and was readily available for inspection by the Feds.

But the law doesn't stop there. All the personal, swingers, and amatuer sites where members post their own pictures are subject to the same law. In the past if you posted your own picture, you were the primary producer of the porn and responsible for yourself. Now the owner of the website must get that proof from you before you can post your picture.

In effect, the law will shut these sites down.

Fine, you might think. Porn producers can take their business overseas. But if an American portal, like Google, allows you to view that porn, then American webmasters are in violation of the law.

So what happens if you post a nude pic of yourself? You must have proof of your id and age ready for inspection at any time, unannounced, between the hours of 8 AM to 6 PM, 365 days a year. Failure to do so could land you in jail for up to five years.

And yet mainstream media is strangely quiet about this invasion of our free speech rights.