Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals


Freedom of Religion: More from the “tolerance” crowd

In honor of  Obama’s proclaimed “Religious Freedom Day“, I thought I’d post this quote:

“Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor nominated by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has written that society should ‘not tolerate’ any ‘private beliefs,’ including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual ‘equality.’” —CNS News

Combine that sentiment from a self described “radical” with this from the Proposition 8 trial in San Francisco last week, and you see even more clearly the pervasive depth to which this intolerant sentiment has spread, especially in the activist gay community:

“A chilling moment came when San Francisco city attorney Therese Stewart had Professor Chauncey read official doctrinal statements from the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church that both generally restated what the Bible says about the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Professor Chauncey said those doctrinal statements reflect historic bias against those who engage in homosexual behavior. It’s not hard to figure out what is so frightening about an attempt in federal court to attack and delegitimize the views of the two largest Christian denominations in America. This is further proof that this case, and the very definition of marriage, is about much more than the personal relationships and the inner feelings of people who choose same-sex relationships. It is about imposing a different and intolerant “morality” on America and eradicating opposing ideas.” —ADF

The activist gay movement is first and foremost about the “eradication” of opposing ideas.  They openly advocate intolerance for others with whom they happen to disagree.  Proposition 8 was passed in a large part because of the repeated intolerance this group shows, and because of their efforts to legislate this intolerance into California law.

The gay movement says the fight against “equality” is all about hate.  I have to agree.  It’s about hate alright.  Whose hate is it though?  Whose freedoms are really at stake, and whose legal equality?

We all have the right to believe as we choose.

–Beetle Blogger

See this from a children’s primer on the First Amendment:

Freedom of Religion
Did you know that you have two Freedoms
granted by the First Amendment regarding Religion?

Pilgrims were called Separatists back in England because they wanted independence from the established Church of England. In 1620, they sailed the stormy Atlantic for 63 days on the tiny Mayflower, seeking freedom of religion in the New World.

The First Amendment contains two clauses about the Freedom of Religion. The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of his or her religion. However, religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws.

Religious freedom is an absolute right, and includes the right to practice any religion of one’s choice, or no religion at all, and to do this without government control.

Your rights to Freedom of Religion and the free exercise thereof means:

  • The Freedom of Religion is an inalienable right.
  • The First Amendment provides for the Freedom of Religion for all Americans.
  • The Free Exercise Clause provides that government will neither control nor prohibit the free exercise of one’s religion.
  • The government will remain neutral.

What About Equality? The Rhetorical Twist List

Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage


The Twist List

With the CA Supreme Court convening on proposition 8, same-sex marriage questions abound.  I’m making this Q&A list sticky for the next few weeks, so it will appear before the rest of the posts down below.  These are Common Claims that Advocates of Gay Marriage Make…click a claim to see each refutation.  –Beetle Blogger

Claim 1: Marriage is an institution designed to foster the love between two people. Gay people can love each other just as straight people can. Ergo, marriage should be open to gay people.
Claim 2: Not all straight couples have children, but no one argues that their marriages are unacceptable
Claim 3: Some gay couples do have children and therefore need marriage to provide the appropriate context.
Claim 4: Marriage and the family are always changing anyway, so why not allow this change?
Claim 5: Marriage and the family have already changed, so why not acknowledge the reality?
Claim 6: Children would be no worse off with happily married gay parents than they are with unhappily married straight ones.
Claim 7: Given global overpopulation, why would anyone worry about some alleged need to have more children in any case?
Claim 8: Marriage should change, whether it already has or not, because patriarchal institutions are evil.
Claim 9: Gay marriage has had historical and anthropological precedents.
Claim 10: Banning gay marriage is like banning interracial marriage.
Claim 11: The case for gay marriage is more “poignant” than the case against it.
Claim 12: Gay marriage is necessary for the self-esteem of a minority.
Claim 13: Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is homophobic.
Claim 14: Exceptions could be made for religious communities that disapprove of gay marriage, or religious communities could simply add their rites to those of the state.
Claim 15: To sustain an “ethic of caring and responsibility,” we must include gay people in every institution.
Claim 16: Norms of any kind at all are discriminatory.
Claim 17: Almost everyone believes in equality. How can we have that if gay citizens are denied the same rights as other citizens?
Claim 18: Winning the struggle for gay marriage is important for the cause of gay liberation.
Claim 19: What about majority rule in democratic countries?
Claim 20: But gay people are a small minority. Allowing them to marry would mean nothing more than a slight alteration to the existing system and would even add support for the institution. What’s all the fuss about?

For Entire Q&A List with Answers Click Here

Words mean happiness?

I’ve been thinking about this same-sex marriage issue for a while now.  It seems to me that there is this idea floating out there among posts promoting same-sex marriage that the title “Marriage” is all that stands between these couples and true happiness, and that I personally am among those preventing their personal happiness.  I wonder about that.  What is it about the change in title that leads people to believe true happiness will result?

I guess my deeper question is, first, are gay communities deeply unhappy?  What causes happiness?  Are there fundamental, universal laws that dictate when happiness can be felt?  Or does it really boil down to a perceived deficiency in the gay community that they feel will be remedied by formal acceptance of their lifestyle as demonstrated by inclusion in the term “marriage?”

Words mean things.  What is it that is so valuable to the gay community that they feel the need to abrogate marriage?