Gay Rights: Bookerista Perspectives

As regular readers know, I am supportive of gay rights. I don't think the government should butt in if a non-related man and woman, two men or two women, or one man and two women, or one woman and two men (and so forth) wish to marry. I'm side-eyeing Mr. Perryman's equation of a relationship between gay adults to that of rape. But here goes:

Harry Jackson Jr.: "What's The Vex Of Same-Sex?"

Asks the conservative commentator in the D.C. metro area, who argues that there will be 8 negative outcomes of gay marriage: "The first impact would most likely affect the number of marriages in the United States. Fewer people would see marriage as the ultimate covenant between two people. The proof of this lies in the state of Massachusetts where only 43 percent of same-sex couples who cohabitate have utilized the state law which grants them marriage rights. Heterosexual couples in Massachusetts are more likely to marry (91 percent) but the degree to which same-sex couples marry devalues the commitment for all couples and the number is likely to decrease. In the Netherlands, only 12 percent of gay couples have chosen marriage; this low number is consistent with countries that have legalized same-sex marriages. A second impact that legalizing same-sex marriage would have on our society would be that monogamous and sexually faithful relationships would decrease. Fidelity among same-sex couples in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage is extremely low. Several studies in the Netherlands show shocking figures: homosexual men who have a steady partner have had an average of eight other sexual partners per year; lesbians were found to have more male partners over their lifetime than heterosexual women. This lack of fidelity affects the view of marriage by the society in general, no matter the sexual preference. Third, same-sex marriage would negatively impact the number of couples who would remain married throughout their lives. As the transient nature of homosexual relationships becomes a normative ingredient of a society, all marriages will be impacted. One of the studies mentioned above found that the average male homosexual partnership lasts only 1½ years. This is a direct result of the widespread promiscuity among the homosexual community. Next, the effect of same-sex marriage could be felt in the area of polygamy. Once society is afforded the opportunity to choose a spouse regardless of sex, the next step is to take the limit off the number of spouses a person may have. In case you think this is an unlikely scenario, one lawsuit has been filed in the courts using the argument we have stated above."

Mr. Jackson Jr. continues his commentary: "Moving on from marriage, we can readily deduce that the next influence same-sex marriage would have would be on children. More children would grow up without both father and mother to influence their lives. The social sciences are replete with study after study that commands our attention to the positive effect married, biological parents have on their children. Children are more emotionally stable and achieve higher test scores when they are raised by a mother and a father. Creating permanent motherless or fatherless homes dares to suppress the best standards for the next generation. Allowing gay partners to adopt will deny innocent children (who are unable to choose for themselves) the benefit of a home with both a mother and a father. Another negative impact same-sex marriage would have on our families is that schools would be required to offer information about homosexuality as a choice to students. Sex education classes would purport that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones."

More: "Next, the impact of same-sex marriage will have a negative impact on the economy. Once same-sex marriage is legalized, all employers, whether they are public or private, will be forced to provide a benefits package for same-sex couples. This will broadly affect every US citizen as our consumer goods and services will increase due to the increase cost of benefits that companies (large or small) will have to bear. Finally, the conscience of each citizen and our religious liberties would come under attack if same-sex marriage became legalized. Once a law has been made, the interpretation of that law is managed by the court system, which has often seen opinion rise over the will of the people. Religious schools, colleges, and organizations might face becoming stripped of their tax-exempt status if they do not hire and admit homosexuals. Social workers, psychologists, counselors and other professionals could have their licenses revoked because they have chosen to 'discriminate' against homosexuals."

Wayne Perryman: "Preachers & Christians Endorsed Homosexuality When They Voted For Obama"

Asserts the conservative Republican pastor: "When President Obama gave his speech [on Saturday] to the Gay Human Rights Group, he was merely keeping his campaign promises to preachers and Christians. [On Saturday], he told his audience that that when America voted for him (both preachers and Christians) they were approving and endorsing his campaign promises which included the following:

1. Remove 'don’t ask, don’t tell' from military regulations

2. Pass a [h]ate [c]rime/[s]peech laws to protect gays from being what is considered hate speech, which include sermons by preachers. (Note: Eric Holder said the law will protect gays from hate speech, but it will not protect preachers from the same, if gays lash out against preachers).

3. Overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which currently says marriage is between one man and one woman.

4. Approve and sanction same sex unions

5. Support Abortions and the woman’s right to choose.

Many will say that when they voted for Obama they weren’t voting for these things. But if the man told you what he was going to do - and you vote for him anyway, isn’t that a form of endorsement? Let me put it this way. If a young man told you that he was going to rape your daughter if you allow him to take her out a date, wouldn’t your approval of the date be an endorsement for rape?"

La Shawn Barber: "Leftist Bloggers, White House Says Take Off The Pajamas"

The conservative blogger in California writes about the White House's dismissal of liberals who argue that U.S. President Barack Obama is acting too slow on gay rights: "Some homosexuals are peeved President Barack Obama didn’t say more about their 'rights' in a Human Rights Campaign speech delivered [on Saturday]. I have yet to hear/read the speech, but apparently Obama pledged to end the military’s 'don’t ask, don’t tell' policy, but stopped short of retracting his opposition to 'gay marriage.' Naturally, bloggers on the left are buzzing. My opposition to homosexual 'marriage' and belief in God’s prohibitions against the practice itself are well-known, and I’ve got the 'Religious bigot!' creds to prove it. But I’m surprised the White House called homosexual bloggers pushing the prez on the 'right' to marry 'left fringe.' NBC’s Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood said an Obama advisor told him 'those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.'"

She continues: "The pajamas snark is so 2004. (Et tu, Sarah Palin?) I thought Obama’s advisors were youngish and 'hip'? There are lawyers, doctors, teachers, students, etc., following the issues, researching the issues, doing independent reporting, blogging about what’s important to them, and offering unique perspectives and observations. But the White House knows that. The advisor was trying to be dismissively funny. (I oppose what most leftist bloggers support, but I take it a bit personally when political types and mainstream media insult bloggers, because I am a blogger.) Calling the country’s division on the issues 'complicated and difficult' is an understatement, but it shows that Obama is trying to play as close to the middle as he can while maintaining his fan base core supporters. He’s between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and I hope his support among 'left fringe' devotees wanes."

Tyrone: "Obama And The Gay Agenda"

The conservative Republican blogger in Baltimore, Md., argues that President Obama is merely paying lip service to gay activists: "The speech that Obama gave to gays and gay advocates was merely lip service as with all his speeches. The Saturday Night Live skit proves it. Obama has given speech after speech after speech, yet he has done nothing on top of nothing. If Obama was truly serious about lifting the 'don't ask' rule, he would have done it as soon as he was sworn into office as a top priority. Gays haven't figured out that they are a second hand [sic] priority at best. The top four agendas of Obama this year were 'government health care', 'the porkilus bill', 'cap & tax' and 'card check'. Anybody who follows politics know that Obama wouldn't dare bring up the issue of repealing 'don't ask, don't tell' during the midterm elections next year. It would be political suicide for the Democratic Party if he did. The whole gay marriage movement has been extremely deceptive. First gays made the claim that they wanted the rights to make medical decisions for their partners. Then they said that they were ok with having [c]ivil [u]nions as long as they had the equivalents [sic] 'rights' as heterosexuals have. Now that Obama is in the White House and Democrats control both houses, the 'true' agenda has been presented by gays and gay advocates. So will Obama risk alienating moderate to conservative [i]ndependent voters as well as risking creating a demoralized military by lifting don't ask don't tell? Obama really hasn't been known for making the tough decisions. Maybe he'll just vote present instead."