Saturday, December 20, 2008

Attorney General Jerry Brown, AKA Fish-Out-Of-Water

"A flip-flop, flippty-flip-flip-flop you don’t stop…" says a community commenter at Michelle Malkin's blog.  The little ditty accurately describes the shenanigans taking place at the Attorney General's office.

Jerry Brown, CA Attorney General, came gallantly to the defense of the people's Prop 8 vote immediately following the November 4th elections, vowing to uphold the constitutional amendment against his own personal beliefs.  Now, however, in a perhaps-not-so-surprising turn of events, Brown has renounced his supportive position and fallen in with gay rights activists' "rainbow-love-change-civil rights-freedom" mantra, claiming that the amendment was "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty."  RIP, Jerry Brown, RIP. 

Most outrageous is this quote from Brown himself that claims his change of heart was brought about by, "further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution."  It is my humble opinion that the astute and capable Jerry Brown, would undoubtedly already be quite versed in Proposition 8 and every aspect of its Constitutional repercussions; he is the Attorney General, after all.

Pearl opines:

How to win a 2010 governor's chair?  Jump ship on Proposition 8 in order to win popularity with the up-and-coming, "enlightened and progressive," young CA voter pool.

But really, can we really blame JB for being more afraid of the gay rights activists' reactions should Prop 8 be upheld than the traditional marriage supporters' reactions should Prop 8 be overturned?  Hm?  The answer is no, not if you've been following the blazing trail of GRA hate visible from outer space.

On a more positive note, joining the Yes on 8 legal defense team is the esteemed Kenneth Starr, Dean of Pepperdine University Law School, former US Court of Appeals Judge, DC Circuit, and former US Solicitor General who has argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Permissive Laws, Permissive Behaviour

Dr. Trayce Hansen, licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, compiled an overview of various comprehensive research studies performed regarding the genetic v. environmental debate surrounding homosexuality.

Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.

A closer look at the research

Twin study investigations of homosexuality were recently conducted in both Sweden and Finland. Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (ie, identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100 percent of the time because identical twins share 100 percent of their genes.

But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10 percent or 11 percent of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.

A Danish research investigation studied two million adults living in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. This study uncovered a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability an individual will seek a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex partner for marriage.

For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.

For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.


Finally, an American research study—the most comprehensive and representative survey of sexual behavior in America—reported its findings concerning homosexuality. The results of this study also support an environmental theory of homosexuality, not a genetic one. In particular, this survey identified specific types of environments that increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior. The authors describe these environments as "congenial" to the development of homosexuality.

For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages. The authors offer the following possibility: "an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior." Note the word "elicit." These researchers believe that growing up in a more pro-homosexual region may evoke or draw out homosexual behavior in young men. The implication is that some homosexual men who were reared in urban centers would not have become homosexual if reared in non-urban centers. The authors explain, "the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways."

This map of the CA Prop 8 results would seem to support the "urban influence" findings.

For American women, the environmental factor most associated with a homosexual or bisexual identity was a higher level of education. And though that was also true for men, the pattern for women was more dramatic. For instance, a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma.

For more information about the college education influence on homosexual determination, click here.

To read the entire Trayce Hansen research compilation with reference and source citation, click here.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

The Marketing of Evil

From another member of the DNA (Digital Network Army), comes a tip about a book that I will most definitely buy, devour, and promote, because I wholeheartedly agree with the very premise upon which it is written: that while the freedom-and-rights gift-wrap is beautiful and enticing, homosexuality is, at its very core, evil.

The Marketing of Evil, by veteran journalist David Kupelian.
"The Marketing of Evil" reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value.  Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America's founding regarded as grossly self-destructive - in a word, evil.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Studly King Arthur - Defender of Truth; Defender of Tradition.

Last night I tortured my husband during our movie night on account of the fact that we had unknowingly chosen a movie that was right up the marriage defense ally. So the movie went something like this: pause, scribble scribble, play...pause, scribble scribble, play. I took notes religiously (pun intended).

First Knight is the Hollywood version of the King Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot story. I truly despise the Guinevere/Lancelot part of this tale. It disgusts me that two adults can't seem to exercise enough self-control to preserve the sanctity of marriage especially when they had so many opportunities to pursue their relationship prior to the marriage of Gwen to King Arthur. But, I digress.

The true hero of this epic tale is the noble King Arthur - defender of right, truth, and light. His nemesis, Malagant, is the complete antithesis, a vile man bent on defeating right, truth, and light. Once a knight of the round table, brother to King Arthur, Malagant's break from light produced devastating consequences for the innocent villagers and children across the border from his land. In his desire for conquest and rule, he brutally ended the lives and trampled the freedoms of many.

So, Malagant goes for the gold when he sets his sights on acquiring Camelot for his own; and his brilliant plan is to triumph through theft and coercion. You see, Arthur's heart belongs to the beautiful Guinevere and Malagant knows that by manipulating or capturing her, he will strike a heavy blow to Arthur's Achilles heel and hold in his possession the most coveted bargaining chip.

In short, Guinevere refuses to sign Malagant's so-called "fair" treaty, denying him power in her native Lionesse. Arthur invites him to come to Camelot to discuss the issue. Here is the transcript of their conversation. What strikes me is the glaringly obvious parallels between Malagant's faulty logic and bravado and the gay rights movement's similar conduct and outcry.

GRA = Gay Rights Activists

Arthur opens his council with a prayer:
"May God grant us the wisdom to discover the right,
The will to choose it,
And the strength to make it endure. Amen."
Malagant [with petulance]: "Other people live by other laws, Arthur. Or is the law of Camelot to rule the entire world?"

(GRA - Why do we have to be "subjected" to your beliefs?)

Arthur [with authority]: "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. Either what we hold to be right and good and true IS right and good and true for all mankind under God, or we're just another robber tribe."

Malagant [threatening]: "Your fine words are talking you out of peace and into war."

(GRA - You're going to get what you deserve. We take no responsibility for our actions if you continue to deny us our supposed "rights").

Arthur [with conviction]: "There's a peace that's only to be found on the other side of war. If that battle must come, I will fight it!"

Knights of the Round Table [with loyalty]: "And I! And I! And I! And I!...."

Defenders of Traditional Marriage and Family [with urgency and conviction]:

Pearl - "And I!"
Beetle - "And I!"
Pomegranate - "And I!"
California Crusader - "And I!"
Kingfisher - "And I!"
Preserving Marriage - "And I!"
Journalista - "And I"
Standing for Truth - "And I"
Make My Vote Count - "And I"
A Shepherd's Voice - "And I"
Protect Biblical Marriage - "And I"
Article VI Blog - "And I"
(and the list could go on and on)

Malagant [with derision]: "The great Arthur and his great dream. No dream lasts forever."

[Discontented Malagant stomps off]

When he isn't promptly delivered what he wants on a silver platter, Malagant plots to take it by force (GRA - If the people of California won't give us what we want, we'll just rant and rave and throw the ultimate tantrum until they are intimidated and cowed into concession). He kidnaps something precious to Arthur (Guinevere) and in a show of ultimate contempt and disrespect, he strips it of its decency and modesty then mocks its very core (GRA - Defacing temples with graffiti, attacking innocent people, threatening, intimidating, etc.).

Lancelot saves Guinevere and returns her to Arthur.

Relentless in his hunger for authority and sovereignty, Malagant violently seizes Lionesse, drawing Arthur to defend the terrorized nation. When Arthur out-maneuvers him and his plan fails miserably, the petulant Malagant then meets Arthur on his own turf, infiltrating the great city of Camelot and surrounding citizens during the public hearing of adulterous Lancelot and Guinevere.

The pinnacle of this tale is achieved when Malagant and Arthur meet face to face, with Arthur clearly outnumbered and bested. The ensuing dialogue between the two leaders - one clearly right and the other clearly wrong - is so absolutely in sync with our times and our struggles against those forces who would promote practices that will ultimately destroy the fundamental and essential family unit.

Malagant [accusatory]: "The strong rule the weak; that's how your God made the world."

Arthur [patient]: "God makes us strong only for a while so that we can help each other."

Malagant [scornfully and forcefully]: "My God makes me strong so I CAN LIVE MY LIFE."

Malagant [speaking to the people]: "Arthur says to you, 'serve one another.' Well when are you going to start living for yourselves? Now THIS is the freedom I bring you. Freedom from Arthur's tyrannical dream. Freedom from Arthur's tyrannical law. FREEDOM FROM ARTHUR'S TYRANNICAL GOD!"

Malagant [speaking to Arthur again; demanding]: "I want your people to see you kneel before me, hero. Kneel before me, or die."

(GRA - We will accept nothing less than complete and total acceptance of our lifestyle, or else....)

Arthur dies entreating his people to never surrender to domination and forced submission; to fight to the death for right and freedom.

And so I will. I will fight as long as I have my voice: fight for my freedom of religion, fight to protect family and marriage and society, fight for the innocence of my children.

Friday, December 5, 2008

Evangelicals, Mob Veto, & Prop 8 Musical Reactions

So, I'm still here.  I've just been playing copy cat lately.  My new favorite site, Kingfisher Column, has apparently been hard at work boosting its visibility and I've been following suit, thus all the new buttons on my sidebar.  (Vote for me!)

But, this new fascination aside, I've still been keeping tabs on the SSM scene and here's what's caught my eye today:

["Nearly one of every four Californians who voted last month describe themselves as evangelicals or born-again Christians, and their overwhelming support for Proposition 8 was a key reason the ban on same-sex marriage was approved at the polls.

That is among the findings of a post-election survey of California voters released today by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

The survey found that 84 percent of self-described evangelicals or born-again Christians supported Proposition 8. Those voters represented 24 percent of the electorate."]



This full page ad appeared in the New York Times today.  It makes my heart sing that someone was willing to spend that kind of money to report this travesty in a paper that should have been all over it with their own news reporters and editorials. 



Prop 8 - The Musical drew quite a bit of negative reaction, and rightfully so.  The little ditty was way off-target and extremely offensive.  Besides that, Mark Steyn makes a good point in his summary of the tasteless theatrical:
[If every single Mormon in California had voted for Prop 8, it would have been overwhelmingly defeated. Instead, it passed - in part because of Obama’s coat-tails: He drew a large black turnout, and regrettably for Mr. Shaiman the majority of those blacks voted ”anti-gay”. What, no “Ol’ Man River” parodies about homophobic stevedores?

How about the Hispanics? “Ev’rything’s Straight In A-me-ric-ca!” And, if it’s religious intolerance you want to take a swipe at, where’s the big dance number set at the Oakland Halal butchers?

Ah, but then you might get a more motivated crowd waiting at the stage door, right?]

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

"Prop 8 - The Musical" - Starring Jack Black, Margaret Cho, & John C. Reilly


Subliminal messages:

Gay marriage is trendy, youthful, and light; traditional Marriage is prudish, outdated, and black.

Love is all you need; the Bible is hocus pocus.

Gay marriage is right and good because all the money spent on weddings will save our economy. 

*Oh brother*

My take:

If this is what passes for comedy now days, I'll have no part of it.  It didn't make me laugh; it made me roll my eyes and throw my hands up in exasperation and disbelief.  I find it telling that the director went straight for mocking religious beliefs, completely ignoring the fact that there are stacks and stacks of secular research studies which prove that the gay lifestyle is violent, destructive, diseased, and unwholesome (check out the resources section here).  In truth, the reality of the gay lifestyle is a far cry from the bouncing, singing, "gaiety" depicted on the "beach" in this insipid musical.  The reality that is so conspicuously absent from this supposed "humor" is that of AIDS, violence and domestic abuse, broken homes, confused children, and a genderless, dead-end society, left stripped and scorned in the frigid cold, hugging its identity-complexed, family-murdered, dysfunctional self.

Reality Check:

Supporters of traditional marriage
(not anti-gay people, just anti-gay marriage)

Supporters of gay marriage 
(mockers and haters of all things religious)

Stark contrast, eh?  Let's be honest here, do these pictures inspire confidence in the gay community's touted love theme?  Does this look like a poor, victimized, minority that needs constitutional protection? Are these the same frolicking, gay beach-goers so "gaily" depicted in Prop 8 - The Musical?  The answer is a resounding "NO." Kinda like the one gays already got when 52% of Californians said that gay marriage was not acceptable to them.  Seems like we've got ourselves some kids who need a lesson on poor sportsmanship.  Gays need a modern-day Martin Luther who can teach them to be respectful and peaceful as they promote their so-called "rights."

And last....

Jack Black as Jesus?  Give me a break.  Check out this Jack Black Biography excerpt:

"This being the Seventies in Los Angeles, the parents believed that one should not say No to one's children, making life ever more volatile. Beyond this, there was what Black later described as weird family stuff, not wife-swapping exactly, but swinging. 'It was funny', he said 'and not funny ha-ha'."

Couldn't say "no" in the Seventies.  Gee, imagine that.  Perhaps, and this is just a theory, but perhaps the lack of parental discipline then is what feeds this sense of entitlement so prevalent among youth today.  Eh?  Can I get a "holla?!"  Just a thought.  So, anyway, back to Black.  He says he grew up with an awareness of the "weird" sexual practices of his parents, claiming it wasn't exactly ideal, but in a twisted turn-about he now supports the unconventional. (???)  Hm.  And then there's this....

"Black met cellist Tanya Haden, one of jazz great Charlie Haden's triplet daughters. In fact, he'd first met Haden back at his specialist high school, but the pair had never dated. Now, after just months together, they'd elope, getting married in March, 2006, with Haden bearing him his first child, son Samuel, that June."

Black doesn't exactly have the greatest track record to be able to establish what is good and right and to represent the Savior of the world.  When did sacred things become so openly and brazenly subjected to mockery without so much as a "by your leave?"  When were we taught to laugh at blasphemy and promote immorality?  When did Jack Black, Margaret Cho, and John C. Reilly become authorities on the Bible? And when did their opinion take precedence over thousands of years worth of Biblical teachings from the Savior Himself and His prophets?

Oh I could go on and on, but I'll save it for another post.  Coming up...discussion on how the media has spearheaded the moral neutering of society.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Love That Most Definitely Does NOT Work

The following excerpt is the disturbing reality of activists' desires for society as a whole to embrace "alternative" lifestyles as good and wholesome and acceptable.  I find the statement located in the parenthesis of the third bullet to be most exceptionally pertinent to the Prop 8 conversation and debate.

"Literally tens of millions of responsible, well-adjusted people are seeking out and living new ways of relating that don't embrace the traditional model of 'one man, one woman, sexually/emotionally exclusive, legally bound for life.' 

Recognizing the demonstrated perils of legal marriage at a young age, people are postponing marriage, or (as has been the case in Scandinavia for decades) forgoing it altogether in favor of cohabitation in record numbers.  
Millions of senior citizens choose not to marry legally for a host of valid financial, tax, and emotional reasons.
Millions of same-sex unions, both sexually-exclusive and non-exclusive, exist and thrive - yet participants generally cannot (and many say they would not) legally marry.
Millions of couples (primarily) enjoy the swinging lifestyle, where sexual openness is paired with emotional exclusivity successfully to deepen and enhance the coupled relationship.
There is a rapidly emerging polyamory movement that practices multiple, simultaneous, open and honest romantic relationships, including varying degrees of sexual intimacy.
Elements of the BDSM/power exchange relationship style are being accepted by, and assimilated into, society at an increasing pace, despite widespread misunderstanding.
Religiously-motivated polygamy has gradually re-emerged from the shadows and, when practiced responsibly and consensually among adults, is being objectively judged by many as deserving a measure of tolerance out of respect for religious diversity.

All of these choices, when practiced consensually and freely among adults, deserve respect and social support.  They also need the kind of empirical research to discover and promulgate 'best practices' that the old monogamous marriage model has enjoyed for decades.  Finally, there needs to be empirical research to help demolish unfounded stereotypes and prejudices that work to inhibit complete freedom of relationship choice.  We seek to support the attainment of all three objectives.

We honor and respect those who freely choose monogamous traditional marriage.  It is unquestionably a valid choice for many.  Nevertheless, we equally and firmly believe it is time to lay aside prejudice, inflexibility, ignorance and the insistence that humanity in all its wondrous diversity must adhere to a single acceptable model of intimate relationships, or do without."

Excerpt can be found on the home page of lovethatworks (dot) org.

Cohabitation, homosexuality, swinging, polyamory, BDSM (Bondage and discipline, Dominance and submission, Sadism, and Masochism), and polygamy!  Wondrous diversity?  Acceptable?  Deserve social support?  Unreal!  I am flabbergasted.  These are not "misunderstood" relationships.  In fact, research shows that they are socially devastating lifestyle choices.  And, of course, if you are one of the quiet majority that chooses to uphold and defend traditional marriage for society, if you choose to protect the innocence of children and secure a mother and a father for the wee ones, if you believe that monogamous traditional marriage is divinely appointed by God, then you are obviously, what was it (?), oh yes, "prejudiced, inflexible, ignorant, and dogmatic."  No matter that research shows that traditional marriage is best (and required) for the continuation of society and for the good mental and emotional health of children.  No matter that marriage between one man and one woman has worked for thousands of years.  No matter that the success of government and greater society depends wholly upon the success of the traditional family unit.  In this case, the embracing of "humanity in all its wondrous diversity" would suggest that we toss aside reason and govern ourselves, our communities, and our society based purely on emotion and passion.  This is foolish folly.  We have a Super Ego for a reason.  We need reason to temper our passions.  We need to be checked and reigned in.  

Between the Id, Ego, and Super Ego exists the same system of checks and balances that exists (or used to exist) in our government between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.  In the case of Proposition 8, the Id (gay rights activists fueled by activist judges) jumped off the deep end, demanding same-sex marriage so that the homosexual lifestyle could be sanctioned by the government, receive a stamp of approval, and roll forward in its agenda for total surrender and acceptance.  And where the Super Ego (gay bashers and homophobes) would have called for absolutely no gay union rights, the Ego (52% of Californians) jumped in with a reasonable compromise to make both sides happy (you get all the same rights under the title domestic partnerships while we retain the sacred word "marriage").  Or so the formula usually goes.  In this case, the Id decided to take a turn for the teenage worse and set off on a Herculean rampage against the Ego.  Now, the Super Ego is sitting back laughing at the petulant Id as it destroys its own case for same-sex marriage.

Are you a member of the voice of reason?  The Ego?  What are you doing today to further defend traditional marriage.  This fight is far from over.  In fact, it's just beginning.  So, grab a laptop, a mug of root beer, and a favorite snack then sit down and start saving marriage.  The real marriage.  The marriage that we know by experience works.  Blog, comment, Facebook, Twitter, My Space, whatever you decide to do, just get out there and do something!  Marriage needs us.  And the Internet, which is largely controlled by that stampeding, raging Id, needs more voices of reason.

Related Posts with Thumbnails