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


She, Crouse. We grouse.

by Jeremy Hooper

This from Concerned Women For America's Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D:

Picture 23-25Marriage is the prize of victory for the homosexual activists; they are determined to see their lifestyle endorsed and mainstreamed by “same-sex marriage.” Until they accomplish that goal, they will continue to feel like “outsiders” and they will feel “condemned” by society; their intention is to so normalize their behavior and attitudes that there will be no societal censure or condemnation and thus, they think, no reason for feelings of guilt.

Those of us who support the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman believe that traditional marriage is the cornerstone of the family and the foundation for a strong nation. We in this nation that was founded on liberty cannot and will not stand silent while the courts override the will of the people. We in this nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian values cannot and will not stand silent while the courts overturn the moral principles that have been at the heart of every faith throughout history. God will not be mocked and we, His people, trust in His grace in this and in all circumstances.
California Supreme Court Considers Proposition 8 [CWA]

This from G-A-Y's Jeremy Scott Hooper, PheD up:

Jeremy-HooperNo, Ms. Crouse: It's actually those of you who view this debate as a "culture war" who see marriage as some sort of a trophy whose seizure will lend credence to certain lives. For those of us whose primary goal is for all people to live within this world without fear, harassment, persecution, discrimination, or inequality, the push to obtain civil marriage is seen less as a prize that we covet and more as a right that we are owed!

Your side wants to "protect marriage" because you think that this constant hijacking of the godly high ground adds an automatic layer of moral mayonnaise to your fogey hoagie. Others see this "victory" as another deposit they can make into their heavenly insurance fund. And then there are some of your team's more opportunistic players who want to keep this debate alive because it $ati$fie$ certain captiali$tic need$. But whatever the reasoning, there is an undeniably self-centered motivation underlying your entire movement, Ms. Crouse. And constantly telling people that we gays are the ones who are seeking validation might be soul-satisfying: But it doesn't lend one ounce of validity to your fight.

To be perfectly honest, Ms. Crouse? The LGBT community's most sought-after prize is one that you could help give us.
That gift? To just be left alone so that we can live our lives in peace! But just like our aunt Clara who used to give us wholly inappropriate holiday gifts that were about ten years too young for our tastes, you won't listen to our wishes. It's much easier for you and your cronies to tell us who we are and to tell others what we (and God) want than it is to simply shut the frick and frack up and hear what we (and God) are really saying. Because that's another one of the anti-gay movement's prizes, Ms. Crouse: Controlling the message in the most oversimplified, convenient, demonizing way possible. In fact, that might be my least favorite of all of the "pro-family" movement's prized possessions, as it's the spoiled egg that hatches all of the other toxic ideas.

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

Your thoughts

There is one thing that Ms. Crouse and every other fanantic always tries to pawn as fact when it is actually fiction. This country was not founded on the Judeo-Christian belief system. If Americans now days were not so lazy and would not believe everything they are taught in school or church and actully due alot of indepth research they would know that even that dear pastor(priest) also pass on falsehoods. And that our Founding Fathers were a hodge podge ranging from Atheist to Christian and all in between.

In fact most people in this country believe that churches and other religious organizations have been tax exempt and that our money has always had "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed or engraved on it since the foundation of this country. The fact of the matter is that neither of these situation were even in existance until the 1950's.

But just food for thought the next time you think your tax bill is too high. These orgnizations take in billons and billions of dollars every year pay no taxes on any of it. It is no wonder they are so well funded and can buy off the government to further deny us our full rights as AMERICAN CITIZENS. I have always heard that money is the root of all evil. Considering the above, which side do you think has the most evil.

Another think I always hear expressed from the other side is their freedom of Religion protected under the Constitution is being infringed upon if the government finally accepts our rights and treats our GLBT community with rights we are owed. First off the freedom of religion in the constitution protect all religion however the Christian religion only thinks this protects theirs. It is there to protect Muslim, Buddists, Atheists, and all others that may pratice within the USA. In fact if the Christians had their way we would be back in the days of the tyranny of the old world that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to break us away from.

I have alot more I would like to spell out for Ms. Crouse and others like her. But I think I would probably have to start my own blog.


Odell Davis

Posted by: Odell Davis | Mar 6, 2009 8:22:57 PM

She never says that her doctorate is in communications. Obviously she is not too embarrassed by it because she does call herself a Ph.D. But she is also isn't proud enough of it to ever tell anyone that it is in from a relatively no-name school, and in COMMUNICATIONS! Communications is what jocks with zero brains study, so that they can skate through school with a 'B' average, and still play sports. And this woman is the best "expert" that those morons can come up with.

But, then, the "God will not be mocked!" declaration really clinches the deal for me. What a zero!

Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 6, 2009 9:09:29 PM

Jeremy it really doesn't matter if we win or lose the court case. Because if we lose we should put the repeal initiative on the next ballot and every one after that until it passes. In 2000 prop. 22 passed with 61% of the vote. Prop 8 only passed with 52% so it really wouldn't be much to overturn Prop. 8 and as you say every year more 18 year olds who are more accepting of same-sex marriage are able to vote. So we should keep bringing the repeal initiative back to the voters until it passes. Likely in that time far-right extremists like Ms. Crouse and Concerned Women will lose significant support in the public sector that will make it imperative that they quietly withdraw opposition so they don't jeopardize their commission to evangelize the world.

Posted by: Adam Kautz | Mar 6, 2009 10:25:16 PM

Oh yea, Adam. There is no doubt that we will win this. But in the meantime, we'll keep making out case against the Crouses of the world. :-)

One problem with the constant initiatives: The money. It's beyond annoying to think that in this economy, we could have another $80 million dollar battle. I would like to think that our opposition would be less willing to give the next time around. But I also think that many of the highly motivated on that side would rather go hungry than see two dudes in wedding rings. So that money war is an annoying prospect (esp. if it takes more than one time).

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 6, 2009 11:07:50 PM

Also Adam, If you win by repeating an initiative over and over, then, you've not really won in a satisfactory way. You really need to convince straight people that this is completely wrong, which has the two-fold effect of stopping discrimination and hatred (hopefully.)

Lastly, the fact the women feels LBG people are guilty of their sexuality startles me, I understand that the only LBG people she's met are probably self-hating "ex-gays", but seriously, how can she think we're trying to normalise this just to get closure?

It worries me how willing this people (with lots of lovely church money) can believe in conspiracy theories. I'm really starting to change my mind about coming to America to do *my* Phd (Physics).

Why would anyone live somewhere where it's legal for people to hate you in public, your rights are denied and people can treat you badly without being shunned from society?

How do you cope, American Gays?

(Sorry for my rant, I'm starting to despair at the slow rate of change of the US)

Posted by: corvidae | Mar 7, 2009 3:33:48 AM

The problem with losing the court case is that we then lose the principle of not putting up civil rights to a popular vote.

Ms. Crouse is quite right in that we are attempting to normalize gayness, in that gayness is normal and society needs to understand that fact.
Guilt, she mentions, but, while life with a guilty conscience may be what sin-obssessed Christians are masochistically drawn towards, the rest of society would be quite happy with not living that sort of life, especially when the source of guilt is something that is not inherently wrong.
But the really annoying thing is this tiresome charade of this "sanctity of (hetero) marriage". Let's cut the crap call it what it truly is: BULLSHIT. We know it, she knows it, we know she knows it, and she knows that we know that she knows it; it's all just a charade to confuse the people not in the know. It's a word game that holds no substance yet draws the attention of so many. And who does this appeal to? The people who apparently don't know the history of the church and the true "sanctity of marriage" condoned and solemnized by the church. And, while we're on the subject of moral cornerstones, there do not seem to be any moral codes (or any consistent basis for those moral codes) that have persisted throughout all of any religious history, much less the Judeo-Christian ones that supposedly this nation was founded on.

Posted by: C. Foley | Mar 7, 2009 11:08:52 AM

Jeremy, Thanks for yet another brilliant (and well-written) post.

Dick, I fully appreciate where you are coming from. But please know that modern 'Communication' curricula are to 'The Rhetoric' as Christianism (see Sullivan) is to Christianity. The field of rhetoric and communication is perhaps the most important (and most rapidly evolving) field of study in a knowledge economy and a world of accelerating complexity. Obama will change the world (if he changes the world) because he is a genius rhetorician. The study of rhetoric should encompass articulation (disciplined thinking), objective analysis (sensemaking), law and human rights (what are talking about anyway?), sociology, psychology, cognitive science, complexity science and neuroscience. Crouse is to Obama as Falwell is to Christ. That one tries to steal credibility and integrity through association doesn't make one either credible or whole.

Corvidae, come to Denmark, the home of Bohr, to study Physics. We may be a legally Christian nation, but we actually practice the real thing!

All, thank you for being the most literate and intelligent blogging community it has been my pleasure to come across.

Posted by: John Buie | Mar 8, 2009 5:51:06 AM

First, I must congratulate JH on another spectacular hit line: "constant hijacking of the godly high ground adds an automatic layer of moral mayonnaise to your fogey hoagie. "

Secondly, agreeing with CF," The problem with losing the court case is that we then lose the principle of not putting up civil rights to a popular vote."To me this is one of the essences of the Prop H dilemma, that removes it almost from the realm of a GLBT fight, and it is abhorent to consider that our Supreme Court Justices do not see it as a Civil Rights fight. Justice Yuu was having fits acknowledging that upholding the 18,000 marriages already performed under their May ruling, and upholding prop 8...created two classes of citizenship. Yet all of them seemed to feel that they must defer to the majority of CA voters, rather than stand up to defend Equal Rights. I am glad they were not the ones writing our Constitution!

And Third... Please read this in light of the changing social demography in our country.
This is from Yoani Sanchez in Cuba.


Every day I run into someone who’s been disillusioned and has withdrawn their support for the Cuban process. There are those who turn in their Communist Party cards and emigrate to their married daughters in Italy, or those who concentrate on the peaceful work of caring for their grandchildren and waiting in line for bread. They shift from betraying to conspiring, from monitoring to corruption, and even change their listening tastes from Radio Rebelde to Radio Martí. All this conversion—slow in some, dizzyingly fast in others—I sense it all around me, as if under the island sun thousands have shed their skin. However, this process of metamorphosis only happens in one direction. I haven’t run into anyone—and I know a lot of people—who has gone from disbelief to loyalty, who has begun to trust in the speeches after years of criticizing them.

Mathematics confronts us with certain infallible truths: the number of those dissatisfied grows, but the group of those who applaud gains no new “souls.” As in an hourglass, every day hundreds of the small particles of the disillusioned come to a stop just opposite the place where they once were. They slide down to the mound formed by us: the skeptics, the excluded and the immense chorus of the indifferent. Now there is no return to the side of confidence, because no hand will be able to turn the hourglass, raising up that which today is definitely down. The time to multiply and add passed a short while ago, now the abacuses operate always by subtracting, marking the interminable flight in a single direction."

...and so we also gain supporters every day as more 21st century teens become voters,
and Papa Ratzi becomes a day older.

Posted by: LOrion | Mar 9, 2009 12:42:28 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails