RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/13/2007

Heath said, we said

by Jeremy Hooper

Below is a piece written by the Christian Civic League's Michael Heath (in red) followed by our own commentary (in blue). Enjoy:

All Over but the Shouting
By Michael Heath


I've been doing this job too long. I can remember when leftist activists were screaming about how there was no agenda, and there was especially no effort underway to persuade society to accept sodomy-based marriage. Those lies started to become muted when Vermont used their "sexual orientation" law to force a new concept on civilized society called "civil unions." That is another euphemism for sodomy-based marriage. Massachusetts, of course, followed soon after by discovering that the puritan Christian John Adams actually wrote sodomy-based marriage into the Commonwealth's constitution. Imagine that. No ... don't.

And right away you start off on a duplicitous foot, Mr. Heath. For the truth is that "leftist activists" now and always claimed there was no "agenda" for one simple reason -- THERE ISN'T ONE! The goal has always been for non-controversial acceptance of gays as part of the spectrum of normalcy! That is not an agenda; it is a request for human decency!

As far as the movement for same-sex marriage: Gays were wanting to get married long before civil unions came to Vermont. However, it just seemed like such a non-option and there were so many other biases to overcome that the organized movement to right the wrong of marriage inequality didn't really rise to the forefront until the mid to late 90's. In many cases, Mr. Heath, it was actually your side's opposition to marriage and attempts to ban it in the constitution that led even folks who want no part in the institution to rise up in protest of the un-American way freedom was being challenged in this country! You know, when you all forced a new concept on civilized society called "protecting the sanctity of marriage!"


As for John Adams and the Massachusetts decision: Please don't be glib, Mr. Heath. You know that the Mass. Supreme Court didn't specifically find that John Adams himself was in favor of gay marriage. How could he have had the time -- he had the great historical misstep known as slavery with which to deal! But what the court found was that Adams & crew supported the freedoms of all (including freedom from religious persecution).

Nobody is surprised now when "gays" use euphemisms. I think people stopped being surprised by anything these folks say years ago. They are master manipulators, bobbing and weaving with their words and phrases. It's amazing to most of us that the Harvards and Yales have fallen for this tripe hook, line and sinker.

Yes, it is astounding that America's most prestigious institutions of learning ad knowledge are very much on our side of the issue, isn't it? Weird how that happens.

Get ready for another year or two of euphemism-laden media barrages from our leftist press here in Maine. Al Gore finally helped the "gays" here with the internet that he invented. They put out a ten minute youtube video last week announcing their plans to .... drum roll please .... bring sodomy-based marriage to Maine. Yawn.

Ooh, it's a really nice video. You can watch it here.

Part of me says, "Oh please, get it over with" and pass your silly law. I know that's the "majority-of-Maine-people" part of me speaking cause I know that Mainers are sick-to-death of hearing about all things gay. I'm with my sons. When they were teens they started calling odd things "gay." Can you remember when the word "gay" meant gleeful and happy? If you can you're probably a bigot in the new dictionary that the Attorney General's office is cooking up with the help of his latest transgendering hero/scholar.

Well that would be a dumb dictionary! After all, we never debate that gay means happy. Why would we? As for your sons calling odd things "gay" -- well that just seems sill, as "queer" is the one that means "odd." You should correct them ASAP, Heathster!!

Grammar is important.

Oh, and trust us -- we're just as "sick-to-death" of having to fight for our rights as you are challenging them!! If you all would just silence your opposition, we all could get past this issue, Mr. Heath.

Oh, I'm sorry for sounding so cynical. I've got to tell you, however, that there is nothing standing in their way now. I honestly don't understand why they can't just get it over with and pass their silly law so they can accelerate the decline of the traditional family here in Maine. Maybe that will speed us to the time when it won't be just folks who read their Bibles who see through the nonsense and take a bit of time to do something about it.

Oh, you mean like every other place in the world where gay marriage has been legalized and yet society still has not crumbled the way you all have predicted? Yes, Mr. Heath, we agree with you on this one -- let us "pass our silly law" so we can demonstrate just how much our legalized love "threatens" heterosexual unions! It's what we desperately want!!

Maybe the Nascar crowd will wake up and we can be done with the homosexualization of Maine, especially of our kids and grandkids. I'm not holding my breath.

Wait, what? Why the Nascar crowd? And what exactly are they going to do to us? Scared.

Christians will never buy into the sodomy-based marriage mantra. My sense is, however, that most pastors already have given into the idea of the state defining civil marriage however it wants. Otherwise we would have seen more courage in 2005 when we fought the last statewide homosexual rights battle. You may remember that the Catholic Chancery once again supported homosexual rights in 2005 (they also supported it in 1998, but were neutral in 2000). They were like America is all too often. They knowingly sold arms to an enemy who is only too willing to use those arms against the nation from whom they were purchased. While they were conceding the moral high ground to sexual orientation theorists the Chancery was saying that they will defend the concept of civil marriage to the death. It will be fascinating to watch the elephants of Roman Catholicism and homosexuality dance here in Maine ... fight I mean. You know what they say about elephants dancing. It's best to stay out of their way, otherwise you might get trampled underfoot.

Wow, Mr. H -- You are seriously comparing the Catholic Chanceries support of gay rights to America selling arms to enemy nations?! We're not really sure whether we should scream or cry. On second thought -- why choose?

Oh, but we're with you on the "dancing elephants" part. In fact, that's why we never dated a Republican!

Nope, I think it's all over but the shouting here in the liberal northeast. Bring it on.

Well, to quote Jaime Pressley's character from that award-winning cinema classic known as Not Another Teen Movie:

"Oh, it's already been brought-en!"

I'll keep polishing my stones and looking for the right time and place to unleash them on this pink Goliath. I know the people are with me in their hearts because if they weren't then they wouldn't be reasonable, happy and full of common sense. Maine people really are gay!

Oh, Mr. H -- keep telling yourself you're on the side of reason, big guy. We're not completely sure how ya figue, but hey -- whatever gets you through the day.

Though we do want to thank you for saying you are polishing your stones and referring to us a "pink Goliath." This would only seem to highlight how it truly is your side that is casting the stones, while we are merely playing defense.

Fin.

All Over but the Shouting [CCL of Maine]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Well put rebuttal.
I'm sure Mr. Heath would join the cowboy in the rodeo scene of Borat that wants to hang us all. To quote Bugs Bunny, "what a maroon."
His blog is hilarious --check out the 12/05/06 posting about poor little Teddy Haggard.

Posted by: Brad | Feb 13, 2007 4:44:52 PM

"I'll keep polishing my stones and looking for the right time and place to unleash them on this pink Goliath."

Sounds kind of threatening to me...I could be wrong but Goliath didn't have too much fun dying and having his head cut off in the bible. I wish I understood why this man is resorting to such language.

Death and decapitation as punishment for having equal state civil union rights...not even federal rights? I wonder what he'd do if federal rights were involved...pink Goliath vivisection?

I'm feeling bad for this "pink Goliath" whoever he is. I hope someone gets him one of those motor bike helmets for his birthday...

Posted by: Lesley | Feb 13, 2007 6:14:43 PM

You know what bothers me...and increasingly so...is the use of "pink" in the mouths of our detractors as a way of marking us out and disparaging us.

As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong) our association with the color pink comes from the pink triangle that the Nazis used to identify gay prisoners...just as they used other colors to identify other groups.

Now it is one thing for us as gay people to own this color proudly...in solidarity with all gay people who have suffered. But! It is quite another thing for those who hate and oppose us to slap that pink triangle on us all over again. They employ the same mentality that identified unwanted groups then. Do they not see that those bitter seeds will flower into the same evil?

Bah!! I'm cranky! :(

Posted by: Dash | Feb 13, 2007 11:14:34 PM

Yes, good reposte, but:

"Oh, Mr. H -- keep telling yourself your on the side of reason, big guy."

DUDE!!! Not saying I've never done it, but in the light of the fun made of Mr Beefman and his grammatical difficulties, I mean, you know.

Here to help. :)

Posted by: Willie Hewes | Feb 14, 2007 5:32:24 AM

Ah, thanks for pointing this out, Willie Hewes. But please don't compare this one obvious mistake out of my thousands of "you're"s with Beefman's own grammatical tragedies ;-)

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 14, 2007 8:22:55 AM

I am surprised Heath would even consider John Adams a Christian. Perhaps Heath would argue Adams was more orthodox in the early days, but Adams and his church was quite theologically liberal. Adams agreed with the general teachings of Jesus but denied the Trinity, Jesus’ divinity, and eternal damnation. He even considered other religions good attempts to understand God. A Christian of unitarian universalist bent might be a better description of his belief system than Puritan. Adams’ framework emphasized reason above other sources, including the Bible. He would not have favored same-sex marriage any more than he favored the right of women to vote, but his overarching view is far more accommodating to marriage equality than Heath’s position.

Posted by: jmc | Feb 14, 2007 8:47:41 AM

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, also from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 14, 2007 8:50:44 AM

Wow! Where do you dig these guys up? I don't even know where to begin...first off, Mr. Heath is shocked, shocked! that the state be permitted to define the terms of CIVIL marriage...then there's his obsession with sodomy and bobbing...

But his choice to cite John Adams in defense of "traditional marriage"? Surely, as a Mainer, Mr. Heath must have known that in addition to being John Adams' wife, Abigail Adams was also John Adams' first cousin. Is THIS the institution he is trying to preserve?

Posted by: Ian D. Stewart | Feb 15, 2007 1:18:37 PM

"Pro-family" folks use John Adams all the time to somehow validate their opposition to Massachusetts' same-sex marriages. It's quite bizarre, really. If you really research Adams, he seems like someone who would have been far more likely to serve on oir side of this "issue."

And then yes, there's also the "first cousin" thing.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 15, 2007 1:24:16 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails