About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Courage, Equality, and Defamation

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:28:28 PM
One marriage neutering advocacy organization wants to challenge the California Marriage Amendment on the ballot ASAP.  Another wants to wait so that more kids who will be turning voting age in the next few years can be indoctrinate to their side in our public schools and via the MSM.  See my entry at The Opine Editorials.

Meanwhile, Reuters' Christine Kearney reports that a judge has ruled that labeling someone a homosexual or saying that they participated in homosexual activity isn't actionable as defamation, because "homosexuality is no longer viewed as contemptible."
Chin dismissed Stern's claims that statements implying he was homosexual were defamatory, although he acknowledged that gays and lesbians still suffered prejudice.

"I respectfully disagree that the existence of this continued prejudice leads to the conclusion that there is a widespread view of gays and lesbians as contemptible and disgraceful," the judge said.
Once again, there fails to be a distinction made between orientation and behavior.  Are we all slaves to our feelings?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Continuing LGBT Push by CA Legislature

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:55:36 PM
The Los Angeles Times is calling on Obama to officially come out of the closet for neutered marriage licensing, while the Sacramento Bee reports on the status of homosexuality advocacy in the California legislature, which is undeterred by little things like constitutional amendments.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Marriage Neutering Side Getting More Out-of-State Funding

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, August 04, 2008 3:24:19 PM
The Los Angeles Times continues to use inaccurate terminology in their coverage of marriage neutering and the fight against it, unable to hide their advocacy for homosexual behavior.   Staff writer Dan Morain reports.
Proposition 8, perhaps the most emotional measure on the ballot, would overturn a recent California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage.
How can they still be using this misleading language?  The California Supreme Court did not “legalize gay marriage”.   Before the decision, there wasn’t anyone, and certainly not law enforcement, breaking up gay couples’ “marriage” ceremonies, and gay individuals had the exact same access to a marriage license as anyone else.  The decision neutered marriage licensing in California for everyone so that brideless or groomless couples could get marriage licenses, regardless of sexual orientation, and brides and grooms would not be honored or recognized on the licenses.
Opponents [of Proposition 8] have drawn 52% of their $5.7 million from outside the state.
Which is far more than the pro-side.  Hmmmm.
Bruce W. Bastian, an Orem, Utah, philanthropist who helped found WordPerfect Software, gave $1 million two weeks ago to the No on 8 campaign and hopes his contribution will encourage others to do the same.  "There are a lot of other rich gay people. They can do something," Bastian said. "They don't have to be gay. They just have to oppose discrimination."
This is a stupid statement.  I can guarantee you that Bastian discriminates every day.  The question is – on what basis do we discriminate?  I agree that prejudicial or bigoted discrimination is wrong.  But I do not agree that Proposition 8 does that.

Be sure to check out this other blog here for more coverage on Proposition 8.

Related: Neutering Marriage Devalues and Discourages Marriage
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Activists' Next Step: Marriage Equality - Again

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:18:55 AM
Barring a literal miracle, we'll be settling in to a new construct of "marriage" soon where "the people" are forced  to issue marriage licenses even though there is no bride or no groom involved (one of the sexes is excluded).  I predict that the next great cause for the activists will me "marriage equality" - again.  While the law will say that a reproductive-type marriage (that's one having both a bride and a groom, for you who are slow on the uptake) and one where one of the sexes is missing - are equal - (just listen to that chorus of angels sing in awesome affirmation) - sociologists will discover that things just aren't as good for the willing participants (that would be the adults) and the unwilling (children).

This will be chalked up to a "legacy of bigotry and homophobia" as well as "institutional homophobia" and ongoing individual homophobia.  After all, we all know there is no difference between a union of both sexes and a uniting a single-sex couple, right? The court said so!  Some polls even said so - and public opinion determines reality (as long as it is what the Left likes to hear).  So the fact that these same-sex "marriages" will not bring and equality of results to the participants couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that there is an inherent difference between uniting the sexes and uniting two people of the same sex (or little, inconsequential influences like... oh, God or nature).

Therefore, there will be a need to file more lawsuits against businesses (thereby having the customers, investors, and employees pay up)  and governments (thereby having the taxpayers pay up); and to elect Leftists; expand government with new laws, regulations, and programs (more spending and restrictions); and do everything we can to erase the "homophobia" that is denying same-sex couples and "their" children the equality of outcomes they should be getting now that they will be getting marriage licenses.


You just know that this is the way it will be.  Aren't you looking forward to it?  Get ready for it.  The training will be coming to the classroom and to the workplace and we'll see public service announcements telling us we must all be bigots because of the difference in outcomes.  We should burn old dictionaries, too, and heck - any book that refers to marriage being something between a bride and a groom.  And, as I've said before, eventually same-sex "married" couples will demand a "right" to taxpayer funding for third-party reproduction, seeing as how "bigotry" (that would be Mother Nature) has prevented them from being able to reproduce the way both-sex couples often can, with no outside help or expensive lab work.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Presbyterians Stand Up For Marriage - Mostly

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:53:55 PM
Presbyterian Church USA refuses to recognize counterfeits as marriage, but doesn't punish someone who performed otherwise.  Rebecca Trounson of the Los Angeles Times reports:
The highest court of the Presbyterian Church USA has found that a California minister did not violate the church's constitution when she officiated at the [“]weddings[“] of same-sex couples in 2004 and 2005.

The decision, announced Tuesday by the church's permanent judicial commission, cleared the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr of San Rafael of misconduct and lifted an earlier ruling of censure against her by a regional church court.
So it is just fine for her to participate in a mockery of a God-initiated institution?
In the decision, the Louisville, Ky.-based panel found that the ceremonies Spahr had performed for the two lesbian couples could not be considered marriages.
Look at that.  They got something right.
Spahr, 65, who has fought for many years for full inclusion of gay and lesbian Presbyterians in the national church, said she was grateful she had been cleared of the misconduct charge but disappointed by the finding on marriage.
Funny, my church has full inclusion of gay people.  It condemns, however, using your genitals in sinful ways and does not make a mockery of marriage.
"In not seeing same-gender marriages as marriages, the commission holds to the idea that we are separate and unequal," Spahr said in a telephone interview. "And that causes me great pain."
You know, you can always find another church instead of trying to impose your antibiblical ego stroke on an unwilling group.  And two men and two women do not equal the union of a man and a woman.  Men and women are different.  A representative of each sex must be present for a marriage to exist.  Only one kind of the three couples can ever produce children or unite the sexes.
Sara Taylor, Spahr's attorney, said she and her client also were troubled by parts of the ruling.

"It's worrying that the court seems to be attempting to legislate future marriages and restrict them," Taylor said.
Oh yes, worrisome.  Worrisome for a church to follow the Bible.  So no restrictions?  The church should recognize “marriage” between a member and an unbeliever?  Between a parent and a child?  Between siblings?  Between people already married to other people?  Of one person to himself?  Or only between people who have a vocal enough lobby?
"Can you imagine if I said no to these couples, after they come to me and want me to work with them?" Spahr said.
Responsible ministers say “no” all of the time.  It’s called being faithful and discouraging sin.
She said she was now counseling six couples, three gay and three straight, and said she expected to officiate at weddings for all of them.
I wouldn’t have wanted someone to perform my wedding if they couldn’t tell the difference and had so little regard for the Word of God.

In our country, you should have the freedom to commit to each other, live together, celebrate your love, or whatever.  It is ridiculous for anyone to try to stop you through the force of government.  But there are some things in the Bible and some things in natural law that there’s just no getting around.  Holy matrimony is something between a man and a woman, and churches that still recognize that should be able to operate by that conviction.  If you want to continue being a member or person of authority in that church, you should agree to follow their rules.  Otherwise, you can leave.  Church membership and employment are voluntary, and there are many other churches out there.

Christianity is supposed to change you.  It isn't supposed to be the other way around.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Has Arnold Switched Teams on Marriage?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:20:40 PM
Columnist Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee writes about Governor Schwarzenegger’s stance on same-sex “marriage”.  Recently, there was a lot of coverage that tried to portray recent comments from Schwarzenegger as a change in his position on changing marriage licensing in California.  This is because he had vetoed, a while back, a bill by the legislature to change marriage licensing, but recently expressed his opinion that a proposition to add a “defense of marriage” amendment to the state constitution was a waste of time.

That is not necessary a change in position.  When Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, he cited that the people of California had passed a “defense of marriage” measure directly by ballot measure, and so it should be up to the people or the courts to decide, not the state legislature.  I see no conflict with that position and opposing a ballot measure for an addition to the state constitution.  Someone who wants a particular end may not approve of all methods of arriving at that end, especially when there are pending or looming court decisions that may make those efforts moot.  It is possible for someone to have taken both of these actions and support defending the current legal definition of marriage, and, conversely, possible for someone to have taken these actions and want marriage licenses issued where one of the sexes is missing.  (Remember - marriage is the only institution where Leftists support excluding one of the sexes.)
Based on everything he has said since he was first a candidate for governor, Schwarzenegger does not really seem to care whether California legalizes [same-sex] [“]marriage[“] or not, whatever his personal feelings on the subject might be.

The Republican governor has always said that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. But he has never been adamant about his stand.
Indeed.  Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  Anything else is a counterfeit.
Schwarzenegger has supported state-sanctioned domestic partnerships that give [same sex couples*] almost all of the rights that married people have. And while he has said the state and local governments must abide by the voter-approved ban on [counterfeit] marriage known as Proposition 22, the governor also has said he would not be upset if the voters or the courts legalized [counterfeit] marriage in California.
In this case, he tends to favor the direct will of the people. *He wrote "gays", but gay people already have the same rights as straight people in this regard - to marry any willing, eligible person of the opposite sex.
If the Supreme Court does strike down Proposition 22 and the voters do not reinstate the ban, Schwarzenegger will be put in an uncomfortable position. The Democrat-controlled Legislature is sure to pass another measure legalizing gay marriage in the state, and the governor would no longer have the voters' will as a shield. He would have to either sign or veto the bill on its own merits.
Licensed marriage is not a right in the same sense as the right to free speech or the right to bear arms.  You have those rights naturally, by birth.  If licensed marriage was a natural right, you wouldn't need anyone else to do it for you; it is the people of California who issue that license, and they should have their say.  True rights do not obligate others without their consent.  The people of California choose to license marriages for the good of society.  We are not obligated to license marriage at all.

You have a natural right to associate with whomever agrees to associate with you.  Therefore, you can live together in your own home, make vows to each other, have ceremonies and celebrations – all of that.  Nobody is stopping anyone from doing that.  But you should not be able to force the state to issue you a marriage license against the will of the people.

There shouldn’t be a “need” for a constitutional amendment in the first place.  Courts should not be able to force the people to issue marriage licenses where one of the components – a woman or a man – is missing.  However, courts overreach their authority all of the time these days.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shameful Leftist Ploys

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:40:36 PM
Yesterday, I posted a letter to the Pasadena Star-News that I thought had it all wrong.

Well. Here’s a letter from Lawrence Berg of San Gabriel that I think is right-on.

This is in response to the Star-News editorial "Giuliani's bid for the White House" (from the New York Daily News) asking "whether the Republican party would rally behind a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-immigration, pro-gun control blue stater," suggesting that "America has more pressing concerns than hot-button social issues," such as terrorism.

How about we get the liberals to give us these issues, if they think there are more pressing ones? How about we get NARAL and NOW and their pickets off the streets?

How about we get a Senate that will confirm the president's court appointees? How about we get a state Legislature that will back up a one-man, one-woman, one-marriage initiative? How about a "life begins at conception" constitutional amendment?

I’m so glad Mr. Berg wrote that letter.  Isn’t it just a hoot when the Leftists do everything they can to destroy or counterfeit the bedrock institutions of our society, and then when we respond to their radical activism and their use of judicial imperialism, they say “Don’t you have more important things on which to focus?”  Well, apparently THEY don’t, because they spend a lot of time, money, and energy pushing their anti-family, anti-American messages through the media, in academia, in the courts, in various organizations (including “churches”), and in the streets.

Other great time-tested Leftist tactics are:

The Bogus Compromise – Making an outrageous, extreme false demand or claim in order to reach the real goal, which won’t seem as extreme in comparison.  Example: I felt uncomfortable, so I’m demanding $5 million from you.  Okay, okay, I’ll settle for $2.5 million.

The Hate Card – “You’re a bigot who is filled with hate"...if you don’t enthusiastically cheer every bizarre thing we do and if you stand up to protect your own convictions and interests.

The Closet Card – “You must secretly be one of us...” because self-hate is the only explanation there could possibly be for hesitating to enthusiastically cheer every bizarre thing we do.  This is applied mostly by people confused about the proper use of genitals and/or the proper clothing to wear who may or may not have surgery to remove perfectly healthy body parts to aid in pretending to be someone they’re not.  It has also been used, in modified form, in the “immigration” debate, as in “How can you be against [invasion by illegal aliens who commit identity theft] when your ancestors were [legal, sponsored] immigrants?

We Are Your Family and Neighbors – “You can’t possibly object to this request or this behavior and you have to enthusiastically cheer on everything we want and do, because you have a family member that is one of us or you use products and services made possible by contributions from one of us.”  Never mind that THEY have family members they don’t care one bit about offending or harming, and they benefit from societal contributions made by conservatives, even Bible-thumping Christians.

Don't fall for these ploys.  If you're an American citizen, you have just as much right to vote your convictions and opinions as anyone else.  Vote how YOU think is best.  Support and defend what YOU think is worthwhile.  That's how democratic representative republics work.  They don't work so well when everyone caters to a fringe minority that distinguishes itself through destructive behaviors and reliance on the Nanny State.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »