The Gaytheist Agenda

With many thanks to Ebon, frequent commenter to the Gaytheist Agenda, who provided this wonderful cheat sheet.

When the Cali ruling was handed down, I created a quick cheat-sheet for dealing with those who would argue against it. Since I noticed at least one person using one of the arguments I dealt with, I thought you might like a copy of it:

“The judges overturned the will of the people” ~ It is not the job of the judicial branch to uphold the wishes of the majority. There is a very good reason why very few states and virtually no civilised nations elect judges and that is because it would open them to the same pressures as politicians face. Judges are deliberately
insulated from the political process to ensure that they don’t have to follow “the will of the people”. The judges were asked to rule on whether the state’s ban on same-sex marriage conflicted with the state constitution’s ban on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. They decided it did. making that decision was their only responsibility. Not enforcing the will of the people, not following the prevailing political winds, simply stating the law as they understood it. If the judiciary’s only function was to rubber-stamp “the will of the people”, there would be little point having them. The judicial branch is independent to guard against the tyranny of the majority, not to enable it.

“Activist judges / legislating from the bench” ~ The phrase “activist judges” has only ever meant “a decision I disagree with”. Of the seven judges who made this decision, six were appointed by Republicans and California currently has a Republican governor, not the kind of people normally slandered with cries of judicial activism. As anyone who has ever studied law knows, it is utterly impossible for a judge to avoid legislating from the bench. In any case at all (except Bush V. Gore), the decision establishes a legal precedent. By the principle of stare decisis (roughly “the court stands on it’s previous decisions”), that precedent then has the force of law to all lower courts unless and until it is overturned, thus establishing law and thus, legislating from the bench. That is how the legal process is supposed to work. It is, in a very real sense, the essence of what judges do. Further, the cry of activism can only ever have any weight (beyond the previously mentioned “decision I dislike”) if a decision is made without firm legal reasoning. In this case, the legal reasoning was entirely sound. The wording of both the State Constitution and the marriage act were exceedingly clear and the court also drew on the decision made in Loving which established the right to marriage as a fundamental right. That is a well-reasoned, well-thought out judicial opinion.

I’ve noticed that it’s only the RWers who bemoan Activist Judges/Legislating from the Bench. I’ve never heard that come from anybody on the Left. You know the one time I didn’t hear it? Bush vs. Gore. Nobody on the Right was whining about Activist Judges then.

“Now people will be able to marry children/dogs/box turtles” ~ First off, there is no evidence whatsoever that gay people abuse children any more frequently than hetero people and a certain amount of evidence suggesting exactly the opposite. Secondly and more importantly, marriage is (shorn of the religious connotations) a state-sanctioned contract. Children cannot consent to a contract, nor to sexual intercourse so when one is asked “where do we draw the line?”, the appropriate answer would probably be “at people who are able to give consent”. While we’re on the subject, animals are also judged unable to give consent so leave that one at home too.

Rational people like you and I know that, as do people who have basic knowledge of logic. But the RW likes to prey upon those who don’t and use the time-honored slippery slope fallacy. Of course it’s very effective on its target audience.

“They’re free to marry someone of the opposite sex, like anyone else so same-sex marriage is a special right” ~ There is a reason the phrase “one size fits all” appears in no known constitution or bill of laws anywhere. If you wish to apply that argument, one can as easily shut down every church except the Satanists, not our fault if you choose to be something different or we could enforce vegetarianism, not our fault if you like a steak. Quite apart from the absurdity of the argument, it becomes rather more sinister when you flip it around: If the government can say I only have the right to marry a woman, why can it not say I only have the right to marry some women? Or this woman? Or this aardvark? A reasonable argument can be made for limiting marriage to two people out of sheer practicality and the need to maintain a tax base but beyond that, allowing the state to decide which people can marry sets a dangerous precedent.

They’re always going on about these “special rights” that we want. Funny how we ask for exactly what they have, yet we’re asking for “special rights”. If they aren’t special for them, how are they suddenly special when we want them? It’s like when they have protection from hate crimes based on their religion, but when we ask for protection based on our sexual orientation or gender identity suddenly they start claiming that’s a “special right” or that it will discriminate against them. What the…?

“Marriage has always been between a man and a woman” ~ So was child labour, so was miscegenation, so was slavery. Everything is “always” until we decide it’s something else. The satirist Terry Pratchett once described tradition as “the name we give to something daft we’ve been doing a long time”. His point was not that tradition is inherently a bad thing but that holding a tradition simply because it had always been a tradition was absurd. Until quite (shamefully) recently, it had “always” been legal to force sex upon one’s wife. And then the world grew up and realised that was foul and changed it. Humanity is not static, what was done does not have to continue to be done. If humanity had stuck with what it had “always” done, we would be eating our meat raw and living in a tree. Respect the last by all means but don’t be a slave to it and, when necessary, be willing to learn from it’s mistakes.

Very good point. But they’re wrong about marriage having always been “between a man and a woman”, and they’re hoping everybody is as ignorant as they are. Historically marriage has included polygamy, polyandry and even–yes–same sex marriage. So it definitely has not always been “between a man and a woman”.

“God says it’s immoral” ~ Got God’s fax number? Willing to share it? Then it’s just your opinion. You may have an elderly book that says your god feels this way but I have a book which says otherwise and since neither of us can prove our case or disprove the others, let’s just leave everyone’s gods out of the equation. Or, to quote Sir Francis Walsingham: “Is your god such a worldly god that he must play at politics?”.

God says a lot of things are immoral, sinful, abominations, etc. Of course any time they’re brought up they have excuses as to why those things are no longer applicable, only apply to Jews, are taken out of context, were eradicated by Jesus (though if you try to use that they say he fulfilled the law rather than eradicating it) or whatever. The excuses are endless. But of course the verses that they use against gay people are etched in stone because “God’s word is forever”. I swear their brains are like pretzels because the logic they use is so incredibly convoluted it couldn’t be any other way.

“It’s unnatural” ~ So is wearing clothes, driving cars, modern medicine, corporations and American Idol. The life of man in a state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. The entirety of human existence has been a flight away from nature, a drive to modify nature to our own ends. That is what has made us the dominant species on the planet and, because we never know when to stop, is killing the planet. Homosexuality has been observed in at least a hundred species (last time I checked, it may be even more now). If animals in the state of nature do it, it is natural by definition.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in about 1,500 animal species to date. It’s definitely a natural occurrence.

“It will encourage homosexuality” ~ You can’t encourage an inborn trait. All the
evidence, while not entirely conclusive yet, indicates that homosexuality is almost certainly innate. More to the point, what do you think is going to happen? Are otherwise hetero kids going to notice two guys getting married and think “I’m cured, I want the boys!”. If gay people have been being gay and living as gay and coming out as gay despite the ban on same-sex marriage and despite the phenomenal pressures to be straight and conform and despite the (decreasing but still very prevalent)threat of physical violence, we can safely assume that suppressing gay people hasn’t worked.

Just like their hateful “ex-gay” reparative therapy doesn’t work. It doesn’t stop them from hawking it though.

“It will destroy the sanctity of marriage” ~ OK, first off, let’s talk about that sanctity. Last time I checked, the divorce rate was around fifty percent and around eighty percent of married people (men and women) will cheat at some point in their married life so marriage doesn’t currently seem to be very sanctified anyway. Secondly, do you honestly believe that gay people getting married will have any effect on hetero marriages (beyond the minuscule effect on tax revenues)? Straight people are not going to stop getting married purely because marriage is no longer exclusive to them, the human mind doesn’t work that way.

If Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage didn’t destroy the “sanctity of marriage” then nothing will.

Ebon, I can’t thank you enough for this wonderful resource. I’m sure it will come in handy time and time again.

 

Governor Schwarzenegger is conducting a phone poll to gather opinions about the recent Supreme Court decision about same-sex marriage. You can help by calling to let him know that you support it, and it’s very simple. I did it myself and it took less than a minute.

To respond in support of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision on gay marriage:

1. Call 1-916-445-2841

2. Press 1, 5, 1, 1

Now you know how to do it, please pick up the phone and make that call!

We LGBTs are always accused of having an agenda no matter how many times we tell people we have none. Some people claim that by denying we have an agenda we’re only proving the fact that we have an agenda. It seems that certain factions simply insist on believing there is some vast agenda, and now one has given us a detailed graphical analysis of that agenda. Thanks to the Box Turtle Bulletin I now have the official Homosexual Agenda and the suspiciously similar Heterosexual Agenda, which BTB managed to discover. While you’re at it be sure to check out BTB’s Heterosexual Agenda, Exposing the Myths, a detailed analysis of the vast Heterosexual Agenda.

 
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; there is no Homosexual Agenda, for seeking equal rights and protections under the law is not, despite what some believe and insist, an agenda. If it were then every group across history who sought, in any way, rights and protections under the law was guilty of an agenda. The Civil Rights Movement would have been an agenda, as would be feminism, unionization of employees, migrant farm workers, and so on.

 
Furthermore the fact that this nation was founded on Freedom of Religion could have been called agenda in and of itself under some peoples’ definition. Imagine, people going to a whole new continent so they could escape the religious laws and regulations they didn’t like! Then when they get there they determine that people can worship as they choose rather than how the government tells them too. Not to mention that whole Separation of Church and State thing. How radical. Sadly some are now attempting to claim that we were set up as a “Christian Nation”, and that the government should be run by the Bible. In other words, just what the original settlers came here to escape.

 
So again, there is no agenda. We want equal rights and protections under the law, and to be left alone to live our lives in peace. Isn’t that pretty much what everyone wants when it comes down to it?

 

Seitan has been simply barraged with letters lately, but he enjoys every one. The first one is from TheRadicalRealist regarding Gay Panic Defense for Lawrence King’s Killer.

Oh dear zeus. This is disgusting. Disgusting. The stupidity of this bigoted, maniacal child’s defense is so overwhelming I cannot describe it. Ugh. If that phony defense is accepted by the judge, I am going to vomit. That child needs to be prosecuted as what he is- a cold-blooded killer. Any less is an injustice.

I’ve made my thoughts clear before and I agree completely. Now all there is to do is wait and see how the case goes.

Next up is Lesbilicious who commented on Sally Kern Makes me Laugh.

Of course we have an agenda! item 1: challenge homophobia. item 2: gain equal rights. any other business? laugh at sally kern.

Funny how they consider that an agenda, but when it comes to the RRRW having equal rights is just considered proper, and challenging bigotry is called “fighting persecution”. What’s up with that?

Now from Conservative Hawk regarding Same Sex Marriage Legal in California

Congratulations on your upcoming wedding. I do take issue with the negative characterization of “the right” and “conniving to overturn it.”

I am a conservative and consider myself to be on the “right”, yet I am opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit same sex marriage. This is an issue that belongs in the hands of the people or of the legislature…NOT IN THE HANDS OF 4 lawyers in black robes. They WAY overstepped their powers and usurped powers properly belonging to the people and the legislature. If it is not the will of the people to ban same sex marriage, then there is nothing to be concerned about. In Illinois, we had a group that attempted to get a ballot proposition to do just that. It never made it to election day, but if it had, I would have voted against it. Imagine that, an evil right wing extremist conservative supporting gay rights. Anyway, I have gone on too long now, so Congrats on your upcoming wedding. I wish you and yours the best of luck for a long and happy life together.

Thank you very much for your congratulations, I do appreciate them. And I realize that some of my comments here can sound negative to others. That stems from the frustration of decades of fighting against others for the rights they take for granted, and feel they have the right to deny me and countless others for arbitrary reasons.

You may not be aware but the legislature of California twice vote to legalize same-sex marriage, first in 2005 then again in 2007 . Both times Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. Now that the Supreme Court has rendered its decision the Governor seems to have had a change of mind (or heart) and has stated that he won’t support an amendment to the state constitution. According to news reports his position has been rather “confusing”:

But Suffredini said the governor’s statements on marriage have often “been very confusing.” Schwarzenegger has sometimes said he stands behind the voters’ decision to prohibit same-sex marriage with Proposition 22, and at other times the governor said the matter should be left to the courts, she said.

Confusing is an understatement. It might be time to get the governor a pair of flip-flops.

At any rate, the decision of the Supreme Court backs what the legislature did twice. And the legislature is the elected body that acts on behalf of the voters so in a very real way the voters have, through their elected officials, twice legalized same-sex marriage in California. While some don’t like that idea and never will it’s still the case.

Furthermore I’m sure I don’t have to tell you about Tyranny of the Majority, and that is exactly what is occurring across America with the bans on same-sex marriage. A minority, gay people, are being denied equal rights by the majority, and it’s being done based almost entirely on the religious beliefs of that majority. What happened to Separation of Church and State?

I’m an atheist (obviously) and have serious qualms about religion and its effects on individuals and society. Nonetheless I’d never attempt to have religion abolished or the civil rights of religious individuals taken away. I used to be a Christian, but even if I hadn’t I don’t imagine I’d be interested in depriving others of their right to practice religion. I merely fight to ensure that the rights of myself and others are not unfairly impinged upon. That seems to be an unending battle, unfortunately.

I commend you for your willingness to vote against a ballot initiative such as the one that we’re facing in November. Few self-described Conservatives would do so. Even some so-called Liberals wouldn’t do it, and some are threatening not to if they’re not assured we’ll vote for their candidate of choice–but that’s another story.

Finally, one more from Conservative Hawk, regarding Sally Kern Makes Me Laugh:

On my blog, I offer equal time to opposing arguments and I hope you do as well.

On your story about Rep. Sally Kern, you laugh at her for claiming something about a “homosexual agenda” and then say you don’t have an agenda. I think you lose your case by the fact that your blog is entitled the “Gaytheist Agenda”.

Now I don’t for a minute believe the homosexual community has an “agenda”, but there is no arguing that the so-called activist groups absolutely have an agenda.

I chose the name of my blog as a joke, a parody of sorts. I’m both a lesbian and an atheist which makes me, as some call it, a gaytheist, that being a combination of gay and atheist. And since we’re always being accused of having some nefarious agenda I figured, what the hey? Why not call the blog The Gaytheist Agenda?

LGBT people, including the “activist groups” (radical and militant ones included–though to some people any LGBT person who sticks up for themselves falls into the radical/militant category) are seeking equal rights and protections under the law. Nothing more, nothing less. If that qualifies as an agenda then it qualifies as an agenda for every other group or individual that seeks or demands their rights in any way, shape or form. So does every single individual and group have an agenda, or is the Homosexual Agenda a fabrication of people who don’t want LGBT people to have equality?

Well, that’s it for this edition of the mailbag. Keep them coming and I’ll continue to read them, after Seitan gets done with them that is.

 

Some answers to an oft-asked question.

I’m sure that’s not the reaction most people have. I originally was pretty outraged by her homophobic rant, which was followed by repeated justifications and the inevitable claims of Christian persecution when people rightfully called her on her hate-speech.

But now it seems she’s become so drunk on her previous media attention that not only is she on a crusade against LGBTs, but she will go to any length to prove the vast “conspiracy” they’re engaged in. That is where she becomes amusing.

State Rep. Sally Kern renewed her criticism on Wednesday of “radical homosexual rights groups” that are planning a national day on Thursday to promote their civil rights in the workplace.

Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said Oklahomans who support traditional families need to get more involved in policy fights “or we will cede the victory to groups seeking special rights based on changeable homosexual behavior.”

Are they anything like those groups who have “special rights” based on changeable religious behavior?

The “Clock In for Equality” day is being spearheaded by Lambda Legal, a national organization that is committed to achieving “civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work,” said Hector Vargas, the New York group’s deputy director.

“I would say that Rep. Kern is out of step with the vast majority of Americans, who believe that workers should be judged by the quality of their work and not by anything that is irrelevant to doing one’s job,” he said.

Kern declared, “Lambda Legal makes clear that they will use harassment lawsuits and intrusive regulations to punish people who do not agree with their agenda or the lifestyle of their members.”

It’s always interesting how those who insist on rights and tolerance for themselves turn and scream when others ask for the same thing. Apparently it’s not really equality they want, but dominance.

Kern received national attention in March when she said gay people are a bigger threat to the country “than terrorism or Islam.”

She said her comments prompted e-mails from thousands of gay people who assured her that they have no particular agenda.

“This proves that they have an agenda,” she said.

This is where I start laughing. The fact that we tell her (quite honestly) that we have no agenda proves that we have an agenda. It’s time for Sally to find a new hobby. Her anti-gay crusade has jumped the shark.

 

Yesterday’s amazing news was that we finally have marriage equality here in California, though it doesn’t become effective until next month. My fiancee and I will be among the first in line to get married on or shortly after June 15th. We already have our engagement rings (below, from Love and Pride ) and are going to be shopping for our wedding bands soon.

Today I got a great new job that I’d been hoping for. Now I’ve got two very good reasons for a celebratory dinner this weekend.

Finally, this afternoon I got the first issue of my new Scientific American subscription. New reading material is always something to be happy about. Now off to enjoy it.

 

It has been by no means been an easy battle. There have been pleas, petitions and seemingly endless hours of waiting (not to mention hassling with the bigots). But we won–the Supreme Court of California just declared same-sex marriage legal!

The California Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage Thursday, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The court in a 4-3 ruling issued the long-awaited decision on its Web site, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ron George, invalidated state laws requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom’s direction.

Gay-rights organizations like Equality California called it a historical decision by the court.

The court ruled the state’s one man-one woman marriage laws violate the civil rights of same-sex couples.

With Thursday’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, California would become the second state after Massachusetts where gays and lesbians can legally wed.

So now my lovely fiancee and I will be getting married instead of “domestic partnered”. It’s amazing how much nicer that sounds (never mind all of the extra rights and privileges that come with it). Hooray for marriage equality!

 

Addendum. Several comments have arrived. The first is from Kim:

Hooray for marriage equality Indeed! This is such wonderful news. I am a new fan of your site and did not know that you were engaged. Congratulations on your pending marriage!

Thank you very much. I’ve been engaged for a few months and we’ve been waiting for the decision so we could see if we’d be getting a DP or a real marriage. Now that we know we’re going to tie the knot!

Next up is Ebon:

You and I both know how the right is going to react to this but now is not the time for such things, that battle can wait.
For now, congratulations and may you and your bride live long and in good health.

Thank you! They’re already vacillating between wringing their hands over how oppressed they are by the evil liberals and conniving to overturn it with their November ballot measure. Nonetheless even if they do get it on the ballot and the voters overturn it, anybody who gets married before then (and I’ll be in that group) is still legally married under the law. They can’t change that!

Next up is cognitive dissident:

Congratulations on the victory, and on your impending marriage!

Thank you! Of course now I realize we have to select our wedding bands. We’ve been anxiously awaiting the decision and never got around to doing that. Off to Love and Pride!

 

Sam Harris is preparing to run another fMRI study of belief and disbelief and he is asking for volunteers to complete surveys to help refine experimental stimuli. There are four different surveys and it’s best if you can take them all. If you can’t please choose a random survey so there isn’t a dearth of responses to the first and too few to the last. Please note that each survey begins with the same first page of questions. Thank you for your help!

 
Belief Survey A

Belief Survey B

Belief Survey C

Belief Survey D

 

Imagine if this became a nationwide trend. Something so simple, yet it can do so much.