Gender called ‘arbitrary mold of identity’

The war on gender continues.  We have monogender marriage in 6 states.  Pro-gender marriage advocates are called bigots. Redefining marriage means replacing the offensive words such as “bride” with “partner.”  And now LGBT rights activists call gender an “arbitrary mold of identity.”

Because calling yourself a transgender is a much more thoughtful mold of identity?

Think Progress reports that trans students at the University of Pittsburgh must use the locker room and lavatory corresponding to the gender on their birth certificate, regardless of which gender they identify with.  Horrors!

HILL: As this [policy] applies to use of facilities, a female who identifies as a male, or a male who identifies as a female, may use restrooms or locker rooms of his or her declared gender identity after he or she has obtained a birth certificate designating the declared gender. This practice applies to student athletes as well. 

If we don’t have sensible regulations regarding sex and gender, couldn’t men calling themselves women have legal access to the ladies room?   

Talk about an arbitrary mold of identity.  

Where did their gay pride go?

“I’m so embarrassed.”

Her voice was hushed and strained.  Her pain was palpable even through the phone wires.

I had called my friend regarding a different matter entirely, but during the course of our conversation, I informed her that I knew her daughter was in a same-sex relationship with her girlfriend.  I wanted her to know that I know in case she wanted to talk about it.  And she did.

My friend is a lovely woman who devoted her life to her family. One of the traits I admire most about her, she never has a bad word to say about anyone.  With a successful career in the health care industry, she supported her husband and children and even found time to volunteer at school. They believe in education, not religion; she and her husband both have their master’s degrees and their kids are following in their footsteps.  Their children are intelligent, accomplished, kind, and popular at school.

My friend and her husband fit right into the liberal landscape of Vermont; I was the weird one.  Long ago we had learned to tread carefully whenever politics or religion was broached.  Our state has advocated homosexual behavior for over a decade, starting with the push for civil unions, moving to same-sex marriage, and now suing Vermonters who refuse to celebrate gender-segregated “marriage.”

Because she is liberal, I was surprised to hear my friend divulge that she was embarrassed about her daughter’s same-sex relationship.  I suggested that it could be a passing phase.  After all, our state pushes homosexual behavior.  No doubt the liberal arts college her daughter attended taught the kids all about liberal love.  Plus, her daughter was hanging out with friends in same-sex relationships.  Far from being genetic, sexual orientation was fluid, especially for girls.  Perhaps she was simply looking for intimacy? 

Before I hung up, I assured her of my love for both her and her daughter.  But afterwards, I felt puzzled.

If a right wing evangelical conservative learned that her son joined the Air Force, she would no doubt be proud, not humiliated.  If her daughter were “saving herself” for marriage, would she be ashamed?  So, if my friend’s daughter embraced the very lifestyle that for years they promoted with votes, why the embarrassment?  Why this disconnect between abstract and reality, between politics and home? 

Where did their gay pride go?

Senator Díaz says NOM united minorities and gave ‘voice to the voiceless on the marriage issue’

Senator Rev. Rubén Díaz of Bronx, New York refutes what liberal media outlets have been charging:  that the National Organization for Marriage is dividing minorities.  In contrast, Díaz defends pro-gender marriage and NOM.  He writes, “We are united.”

"Brian Brown and NOM have done something, that no one has been able to do before: they have helped Black and Hispanic people throughout the nation to find our voice when everyone else rejected us and excluded us from the debate. 

 You should know that NOM has not divided us, it has brought us unity; NOM has given a voice to the voiceless on the marriage issue, and shown us respect for our core, and sacred values on marriage---a respect the mainstream media has consistently denied us."

Read entire letter below:

 "We Are United 

 You should know that like many Black and Hispanic members of the clergy in New York and throughout the United States, I am exceptionally grateful for the National Organization for Marriage, and for NOM’s President, Brian Brown. 

 I write this as a Democrat, as a State Senator and as the President of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization, which represents tens of thousands of Hispanic and Black Christians.  

On behalf of all those churches, I am here to say: I have worked closely with the National Organization for Marriage and I have marched with NOM's President Brian Brown to defend our civil right to be heard in the debate over the meaning of marriage. 

 Brian Brown and NOM have done something, that no one has been able to do before: they have helped Black and Hispanic people throughout the nation to find our voice when everyone else rejected us and excluded us from the debate.  

You should know that NOM has not divided us, it has brought us unity; NOM has given a voice to the voiceless on the marriage issue, and shown us respect for our core, and sacred values on marriage---a respect the mainstream media has consistently denied us.  

No New York Times editorial, nor anyone else will be able to sow seeds of dissension between us and NOM in this great effort to protect marriage. 

 You should know that we will continue to our work with Brian Brown and NOM, and we will continue to praise the Lord for the courageous people He has led into our lives.  

I am Senator Rev. Rubén Díaz, and this is what you should know.

Appeals court to decide if gender integration requirement in marriage is unconstitutional

A federal appeals court in Massachusetts is deciding the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 

Is it unconstitutional for this federal law to require gender-integration in marriage?  Would segregating genders in marriage be better for children and society? Will appeals court conflate gender and sexual orientation when it comes to same-sex marriage?

From the New York Times:

In the case brought by Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general, Judge Tauro found in 2010 that DOMA compels Massachusetts to discriminate against gay couples who are legally married under state law in order for the commonwealth to receive federal money for certain programs.

It’s one thing for two men or two women to conflate sexual orientation and sex.  It’s quite another for our justice system to confuse the two.

The other case, brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, focused more narrowly on equal protection as applied to federal benefits. In that case, Judge Tauro agreed in 2010 that the law violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by denying benefits to one class of married couples — gay men and lesbians — but not others.

If “gay men and lesbians” married persons of the opposite gender, then they would qualify for the legal benefits they seek.  It is not their sexual orientation that precludes them from federal benefits; it is their gender-segregated status, which they freely chose.  In all 50 states, people with and without same-sex attraction already have the equal right to marry a person of the opposite gender. 

Monogender couples claim discrimination, when they themselves discriminate against gender-integration.

Van Jones: President Obama won't 'lose the black vote no matter what he does’

When Alex Wagner asked about same-sex marriage driving a wedge between blacks and gays, Van Jones claimed that President Obama wouldn’t lose the black vote even if he came out as gay.

Free Beacon provides video and transcript: 

Alex Wagner:  Do you think he would lose some of the black vote if he did come out in support of gay marriage? 

VAN JONES: I think if President Obama came out as gay, he wouldn’t. He’s not going to lose the black vote no matter what he does.

Can you imagine if a white guy said this about Obama?  Or, if a white guy said a white president wouldn’t lose the white vote no matter what he did? 

Is Van Jones saying color is more important than policy?

Should government encourage gender-segregation in marriage with green cards for immigrants?

How important is gender diversity in married couples? Should the federal government encourage gender-exclusive couples by granting them financial incentives and green cards for immigrants?  Or does society continue to value pro-gender marriage?

CBS News reports:

Immigration advocates have filed a lawsuit on behalf of several married gay couples, alleging a federal law violates their constitutional rights by preventing them from sponsoring their spouses for green cards.  

The complaint, which challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act, was filed in federal court in Brooklyn by Immigration Equality, an advocacy group. Each of the five couples named as plaintiffs is struggling to obtain U.S. citizenship for a foreign-born spouse.  

The 1996 law, known as DOMA, prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and denies federal benefits to married gay couples. The federal government does not recognize lesbian and gay couples for immigration purposes, and several of the couples have been denied green cards.

The couples are not discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.  It’s because of their gender segregation.  

Gay rights activists continue to frame their arguments in terms of sexual orientation, which is fluid, rather than biological sex, which is immutable.

The United States must decide which is more important to society—gender segregation or gender integration.  Is it better to base federal law on malleable sexual orientation or permanent biological gender differences?

President Obama defends Obamacare but not DOMA

President Obama defended his signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which the Supreme Court is currently analyzing to decide whether it is constitutional or not.

Huffington Post quotes Obama:

"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," the president concluded. "And I just remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

A vote of 219-212 is practically an even split.  Calling that a “strong majority” is the kind of fuzzy math that gets us into trillion dollar trouble.

Obama chides SCOTUS ahead of time for even pondering the constitutionality of his health care act, which, let’s face it, is their raison d’etre.  Meanwhile, he has no qualms about declaring another federal law unconstitutional.  Obama himself is willing to take the unprecedented, extraordinary step of purposely refusing to defend a law that was passed by a strong majority of democratically elected Congress:  the Defense of Marriage Act.

Hot Air notes, “Such is O’s respect for strong congressional majorities that his own DOJ won’t even defend DOMA in court anymore.”   

House Speaker Boehner’s defense of pro-gender marriage called ‘disgusting’ and ‘discrimination’

Did you know that defending gender integration in marriage is now considered “shameful,” "disgusting,” and “discrimination”?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer wrote to Speaker John Boehner accusing him of an “assault on veterans” for defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Not recognizing the value of gender diversity in marriage for children and society, Pelosi and Hoyer want the federal government to fund benefits for monogender couples.  They rebuked Boehner for defending DOMA, which is current federal law and prevents the government from issuing spousal benefits to gender-segregated  couples including those in the military.  

According to the Washington Blade, Pelosi and Hoyer wrote:

This intervention once again puts the House of Representatives on the wrong side of the future – supporting discrimination, unfairness, and the denial of basic equality to all Americans.  

 This latest decision not only ignores the civil rights of LGBT Americans but opens a new, direct assault on veterans.

 Apparently the Democrat leaders ignore the fact that LGBT Americans already have “civil rights” and can marry in all 50 states.  The government does not discriminate against differing sexual orientations regarding marriage qualification.

Deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, Christine Sun said: 

 “It is astonishing that Rep. John Boehner and his colleagues are continuing this shameful crusade against our brave men and women in uniform and is nothing short of disgusting.”  

If liberals consider gender diversity “shameful,” “disgusting,” and “discrimination,” what do they call gender-segregation?

PFOX fights for equal rights for ex-gays on Day of Silence

“Formerly gay persons are reviled simply because they dare to exist!”  PFOX

Gay rights activists won’t be able to intimidate or call names if they are silent, so PFOX plans to celebrate the Day of Silence with a Day of Information by urging students to pass out flyers about ex-gays.  

"Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is urging students, parents, and educators to distribute ex-gay flyers on April 20 to their schools with Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) or other gay-themed student clubs.  

April 20 is the annual “day of silence” when student and teacher members of homosexual clubs in schools across the country remain silent for the school day in order to bring attention to intolerance against homosexuals.  

“Since members of these gay affirming clubs agree to remain silent for the day, April 20 is the time to distribute ex-gay information without interference or harassment from any gay activist faculty or GSA clubs,” said Greg Quinlan, President of PFOX.

The advocacy group which supports people with and without same-sex attraction asserts, "Without PFOX, ex-gays would have no voice in a hostile environment."


For more:  See World Net Daily.