Gay couple sues Vermont inn, who’s next in line for a lawsuit?

On Tuesday a gay couple sued the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont for one dollar.  Kate Baker and Ming Linsley of Brooklyn, New York with the assistance of the ACLU charge the owners of the inn with discrimination for not hosting a gay wedding reception.

The business owners Jim and Mary O’Reilly are Catholics who say hosting a gay wedding reception “goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in.”  Catholics celebrate gender-integrated marriages that include one man and one woman. 

Statistically children are better off financially and emotionally when they are raised in a home with one man and one woman.  Indeed, many Americans believe children should have a mother and a father.  But same sex marriage activists don’t.  They claim families don’t need a father’s manly protection  or his very person.  Dad is excluded because of his gender.

Through the ages children have lacked fathers due to accident or misfortune, death or divorce.  But this new fatherless trend is different because it is by design.  To show their tolerance for gays, lawmakers have declared that dads are unimportant.  In effect they say being gay is more important to the state than having a father.  And in the case of two men getting “married” they claim that females are unnecessary.  (This also demonstrates that lawmakers care more about the welfare of voting adults than children.)  After judging that fathers and mothers are unimportant, legislators codified gender segregation into marriage law.  All this to prove they are nonjudgmental towards gays.

What does this mean for the future?  Certainly we’ll see more lawsuits. If the Wildflower Inn loses the court case and hands over a dollar, this will set a dangerous precedent for businesses and employees throughout Vermont.  Who knows how much money the next gay couple will sue for?  Hundreds?  Thousands?

But it can go both ways. 

For example, what if a lesbian couple has a daughter with the help of a sperm donor?  And the daughter  grows up without a father, without a  chance to form a relationship with a member of the opposite sex in the home?  No testosterone, only estrogen in the house?  Inspired by the example of Kate and Ming who sued for one dollar, what if she takes the state to court for gender discrimination in its marriage law?  What if she sues the state for one dad?

One dollar is a symbolic pittance.  One dad is priceless.

Gay marriage law leads to lawsuit in Vermont; will New York be next?

A lesbian couple sued the Wildflower Inn in Vermont for discrimination for refusing to host their wedding reception.  Assisted by the ACLU, Kate Baker and Ming Linsley are suing to make a statement and uphold gay rights, not to make money.  They seek one dollar in damages.

The owners of the inn are Catholic and believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

According to WCAX:  

“Under Vermont's gay marriage law there are protections for religious groups that do not want to perform same-sex weddings, but it appears those do not apply in this case. A legal expert said even though the owners are Catholic and don't believe in same-sex marriage, the Wildflower Inn is a public accommodation-- not a religious group-- meaning they cannot pick and choose who they serve.”

New York, New York

Watch out New York, this could happen to you.  This time the gay couple is suing for a nominal amount.  Who knows how much money the next gay marriage lawsuit will cost?  The reporter continued, "The same goes for New York's new gay marriage law." 

Should Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian business owners and employees be forced to act contrary to their religious views?  Will the freedom to be gay trump freedom of religion?  

Don't cut in on the father/daughter dance

I went to a lovely Vermont wedding last week.  During the father/daughter dance, the beautiful young bride’s love and joy was evident to all and mirrored by her dad.  Later on the bride danced with her mother.  It was another exquisite moment, though different, because the bride’s bond with her mother was different from the relationship she formed with her father.  And it occurred to me that in the future, some brides will have no dad to dance with; instead they will have two moms.

One of the guests said she was in favor of same sex marriage because she wanted to be “tolerant,” not “judgmental.”  Does she think the bride and groom are intolerant because they chose a member of the opposite sex?  Are their respective parents “judgmental” because they married and had children? Does this guest realize how tolerant gender-diverse marriages are?  They provide the unique relationships that come from having a mother and a father.

Unfortunately, same sex marriage rejects an entire spectrum of people simply because of the way they were born.  When people say they are in favor of same gender marriage, do they realize it deprives some future children from having a father?  It excludes men, masculinity, and fatherhood not by accident, but by design.  In the same breath they also condemn other children to life without a mother; they exclude women, femininity, and motherhood.  Isn’t that sexism?  Isn’t that judgmental?

What is “tolerant” about gender discrimination?  How is the world a better place by excluding fathers from families?  Or mothers?  Do we really want to rob children of these vital relationships?  Instead we could be inclusive and welcome a man and woman in each family.

A dance only lasts a few moments, but a father/daughter bond lasts a lifetime.

If gays are born that way, why aren’t transgender and ex-gays?

If gays are born that way, then why aren’t transgenders born that way?  And why aren’t ex-gays? 

Politically it makes sense for gays to hang with transgenders.  It brings the “T” to GLBTQ. As sexual minorities, it creates more power to pool their efforts.

But logically it just doesn’t make sense.  After all, by claiming they are “born that way” gay activists mean they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions or attractions. It’s the luck of the draw, etched in their genetic code, and they are helpless to change it.  Society must change to accommodate them.  Hence major social changes such as same sex marriage.

Meanwhile, transgender are born a certain way, but they feel it is the wrong way so they can change.  And they don’t just change which gender they are attracted to, some actually undergo biological transitions to become a different gender.  So which is it?  Can people change sexually or not?  Why is it ok for transgenders to change, but not for gays?  

Because ex-gays blow their cover.  If one can change from gay to straight, it refutes the premise that sexual orientation is immutable.  When homosexuals have the audacity to hope and change, they become targets of hatred by gay activists.  President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, Greg Quinlan notes, "While the media look the other way, the ex-gay community is being harassed and publicly denounced by unforgiving gay activists because of our unpopular sexual orientation."  Quinlan claims he suffers more harassment as an ex-gay than he ever did "as an out and proud homosexual."

This is also why some gay activists attempt to discredit reparative therapy.  Witness their attack against Dr. Bachmann, husband of presidential candidate Michele Bachmann.  Gay activists are outraged that he supports counseling patients who ask for help in changing their sexual orientation.

Would Dr. Bachmann be on their hate list if he were helping patients change from one sex to another?  Apparently gay activists are fine with transgender folks transitioning to a different gender.

According to Advocates for Youth: 

"Transgender people report experiencing conflict over their gender assignment throughout childhood and adolescence, often reporting that they feel they are in the "wrong" body."

 

But wait a minute. How can it be the “wrong” body?  Wasn’t he born that way?  Isn’t their entire argument that if you are born a certain way, you can’t change so you should simply embrace it?  Apparently that rule only applies to gays, not to straight, transgender, or ex-gay folks.

So don’t expect an “E” for ex-gay at the end of GLBTQ.  Gay activists hate ex-gays.  But they can’t help it.  Gay activists were born that way.