Monday, January 25, 2010


God Bless Charles Winecoff! It's a good day when I see one of his columns at Big Hollywood!

CA is getting sued because domestic partnership isn't enough. The word "marriage" needs redefined because if its not....well....that's as bad as blacks being lyched in the 50's! And if you disagree, you're a homophobic hate monger! And prolly a racist too.

From the trial:

...when Olson asked Berkeley lesbian Kristen Perry why she was a plaintiff in the case, she replied, ”Because I want to marry Sandy [her partner, also of nine years]… I want the discrimination to end and a more joyful part of our life to begin… The state isn’t letting me feel happy. The state isn’t allowing me to feel my whole potential.” Yet “the state” never prevented Perry and Stier from making a home together, or from raising four boys in that home.

Rule number one: make yourself happy.

In another heartrending account, Helen Zia, a 57-year-old community organizer and writer, told the court that marrying her partner, Lia Shigemura, transformed the way their families viewed them. Before marrying, they had been domestic partners – but according to Zia, marriage gave their relationship a name their families could really understand. Zia recalled how, after they married, her teenage niece told Shigemura, “Auntie Lia, now you’re my real auntie!”

Exploiting children is a ploy as old as the 1980 Carter-Reagan debate, when “Jim-muh” cited his 13-year-old daughter Amy’s natural, angelic concern about nuclear weapons.

The battle for “marriage equality” is all about “the children” too - using them, that is, to guilt us all into submission.

Children are pawns in the Leftist strategy of social deconstruction and dominance. As Prop 8 attorney Brian Raum revealed during his cross-examination of Ms. Zia, the Sapphic scribe had previously described marriage as a “patriarchal institution,” stating in print that she and her partner had only married in 2004 to defy the “fundamentalist, warmongering regime in Washington.”

That doesn’t sound very loving, does it?

At one point, Boies asked Zarrillo why he and Mr. Katami hadn’t had kids. ”Paul and I believe an important step for us to have children is to be married,” Zarrillo replied. That’s certainly a noble sentiment. But Boies’s defiant use of the verb “to have” with regard to gay couples and children begs a question we’re not allowed to ask: exactly how do gay couples “have” children? Why not use the more appropriate verb “adopt,” or “raise,” or “have a surrogate child?”

Letitia Peplau, another “expert” on couple relationships, suggested that a major societal benefit of “marriage equality” is that same-sex couples wouldn’t “have” children out of wedlock. Prop 8 attorney Nicole Moss responded by asking Peplau if she agreed that gay men and lesbians do not have children accidentally. “Can two lesbians spontaneously impregnate each other?” Peplau stammered. “Not to my knowledge, no.”

Yet we’re all expected to pretend that they can – because obscuring the basic, biological reality that gay couples cannot “have” children (without a great deal of maneuvering) helps level the proverbial playing field, reinforces the false notion that “male” and “female” are mere social constructs, and bolsters the progressive, let’s-play-dress-up illusion of sameness and “equality.” It’s the ultimate in internalized homophobia.

So as much as we may like them as friends, relatives, or (fellow gay) neighbors, we don’t dare ask the two men or two women next door how they managed to secure a child to raise (or even how they feel about being deprived of the “right” to abortion). Because to do so might offend – might bring to light the all-too-common motivation for having those children in the first place: to give the gay parent the “experience” of child rearing and/or child birth. The actual offspring sometimes seem like an afterthought.

Instead, we smile approvingly, supportively, and accept the politically correct immaculate conception. How wonderful! How do you plan to to fulfill yourself next? (Yours truly sees a clear function for gay couples in society: giving good homes to the cast-off kids of irresponsible straight people. But I digress.)

In the new world order of enforced fantasy, there is no difference between men and women, gays and straights, penises and vaginas, testosterone and estrogen – only between “liberal” and “conservative,” Democrat and Republican, Statist and Libertarian, good and bad.

As marriage “expert” Nancy Cott, a Yale professor of the history of women and gender, explained to the judge, ”The shift toward ‘gender symmetry’ leads toward the appropriateness of allowing persons of the same sex to marry.”

He goes on with more of the gay left playing the we-are-the same/we-are-not the same game and concludes:

Let me get this straight (no pun intended): we in the LGBT community feel we are entitled to majority-style state approval of our feelings and lifestyles – often against the will of our friends and fellow citizens (who, by the way, are largely in support of nice, secular civil unions, which can always be improved) - yet we refuse to relinquish an iota of our minority status. That ain’t going to get you what you want. Make up your mind, people.

Having grown up with the gay rights revolution, I can safely say it’s no longer the straight majority that has the problem with us. It’s the gay community that’s still hung up on “being gay.” How about dropping the adolescent security blanket of comfy persecution – and try being less of a Na’vi and more of a Marine? The rewards might be a lot greater than make-believe “marriage equality.”

Awesome. How bout that!? And again I gotta say, God Bless Charles Winecoff!

No comments: