Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Most pressing civil rights issue

The lede paragraph in my Saturday newspaper was:
When gay rights advocates slipped into the San Francisco federal courthouse in early 2009 and challenged California's then-new same-sex marriage ban, their goal was to force the U.S. Supreme Court to address the most pressing civil rights issue of this era.
I fail to see how this is a civil rights issue. Blacks particularly hate it when gays make analogies to civil rights for blacks. As far as I can see, gays make lots of money and do whatever they want, without any interference from anyone. The area I live is so liberal that being LGBT is probably an advantage when running for political office.

A law blog posts:
I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now. Bush v. Gore and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks. The government’s assertion of the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to recognize such a marriage, is profound. So is the opposite claim that five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social institution.
This is crazy. I hope the US Supreme Court dismisses the Prop. 8 case for lack of standing, because the LGBT plaintiffs failed to alleged any damages at all. They did not lose money or have to pay more taxes. They did not lose their jobs or health insurance or voting rights or child custody or anything like that. They were completely free to have a church wedding and share a household and commit sodomy.

Meanwhile, millions of kids are being forced to grow up without dads because of discrimination in the family court. As far as I can tell, the LGBT lobby is all in favor of this discrimination. I even had a gay psychologist do a child custody evaluation, and he was one of the most bigoted men I have ever met.

For the most part, gay men do not want to get married, and do not see the problems of the family court. The lesbians are getting the same-sex marriages, and they like the anti-male bias of the family court because they can use it to get child custody and support payments.

A Prop. 8 brief said:
Many voices argued for Proposition 8 on the grounds that same-sex marriage would sever the link between marriage and children.3 Even more significantly, many gay marriage advocates agree, concluding that the redefinition of marriage would it will radically transform marriage as we know it.

For example, journalist E.J. Graff argues, approvingly, that "Same-sex marriage is a breathtakingly subversive idea. ... If same-sex marriage becomes legal, that venerable institution will ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers." E.J. Graff, Retying the Knot, The Nation 12 (June 24, 1996) (DIX1445).
Graff is a lesbian activist who also wants to cut off dads from their kids. To her, sexual choice means that dads do not get child custody.

NPR radio reports:
Not so fast, says the Rev. Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest at All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif. She takes her cues from Jesus.

"Jesus never said a single word about anything even remotely connected to homosexuality," she says.

Jesus does say the most important commandments are "Love God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Given that, Russell believes if Jesus were here today, he would celebrate committed, same-sex relationships.
It is a sad day that you could join an Episcopal church and have to listen to a woman priest recite this sort of nonsense.

What would Jesus say about judges taking kids away from parents? That's what I want to know, so I can take my cues from Jesus also.

No comments: