Marriage Is the Cure

The following article is from American Spectator:

By James M. Thunder on 11.18.09 @ 6:08AM

The American Medical Association has approved a resolution that has the thinnest veneer of science to cloak its pro-gay marriage agenda.

At its mid-year meeting last week, the good doctors considered a report from their Council on Science and Public Health ("Health Care Disparities in Same-Sex Households," Report I-09) and adopted a recommendation based on the report. We should first observe that the AMA states that, after the AMA formally accepted the report and voted a resolution on a recommendation made based on the report, the report is being submitted for publication by a peer-reviewed journal. One would think that the report should have been peer-reviewed before the AMA voted on it. Or, perhaps one would assume that the AMA itself constitutes a body of peers and has already given its review and imprimatur. Can a peer-reviewed journal now reject the report? Or change it in any way other than footnote citations?

Be that as it may, the AMA teaches us that (1) the health of adults and children may suffer if they do not have health insurance; (2) because gay couples are not allowed to marry, they and their children may not have health insurance; and (3) therefore, federal and state laws mustchange to allow gay couples to marry to improve their health and the health of their children. So, the AMA says marriage is the cure to lack of insurance.

The AMA report's Executive Summary (the only portion publicly accessible until publication) estimates that 1% of all households in the U.S. are same-sex households. This 1% includes both insured and uninsured households. Although the Executive Summary does not give a numerical split, we know that many same-sex households are insured by employers who cover domestic partners who are not married. The Human Rights Campaign webpage touts this. So, same-sex households can obtain insurance coverage from many employers without changing the laws of marriage. It is peculiar that, while we are consistently reminded that there are thirty million-plus American residents who lack health insurance, the AMA would focus on such a very, very small subset of the uninsured.

Nonetheless, we can agree with the Executive Summary that "[m]arriage is a strong predictor of health insurance…" Indeed, marriage and family life are strong predictors of health and well-being, of happiness, of longevity, of good education, of employment with health benefits, and of wealth creation (which in turn can pay for health insurance and/or health bills). Conversely, divorce and single parenthood are strong predictors of poverty, of lack of education, of shortened lifespan, of prison, of unemployment, of employment without health benefits, and of drug and alcohol abuse. Accordingly, if the AMA were less focused on its gay agenda, it might look at the various categories of people who are uninsured and recommend to them that they marry and remain married and recommend to all levels of government that they adopt strong pro-marriage policies.

The AMA might look at another category of uninsured people as well. If marriage is the cure to the lack of insurance for same-sex couples who are legally barred from getting married, then the AMA must surely regard marriage as the cure for other people in committed relationships who are legally barred from getting married. Thus, if an insured person is caring for an adult child or an aunt or an uncle or a cousin or a niece or a nephew who is uninsured, then the AMA should recommend that the law be changed to allow them to marry in order to obtain insurance coverage and improve their health.

If we are to allow gay couples to enter into domestic partnerships or marriage itself, then laws providing for civil unions and gay marriage, and employers providing benefits to their employees, should not discriminate against close kin. If gay couples can marry, then close kin must be given equal treatment -- under law and by employers.

A reason that may be used to justify such discrimination is the sexual taboo against the marriage of close kin. But marriage law does not require sexual relations or romantic love between partners to a marriage. Please see my piece on these pages two years ago. Furthermore, even the cultural tie between romantic love and marriage in Western civilization is a fairly recent one. Consider the tune "Do You Love Me?" in Fiddler on the Roof.

Yet we have lawyers and judges and governors and doctors and legislators who say love is -- now, in America in this decade -- a sufficient condition to marry. For example, in an op-ed piece in theWall Street Journal, lawyer David Boies argued, "The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it" (italics added). In deciding to sign same-sex marriage legislation, Maine Governor John Baldaccitold the press that listening to Maine residents was "very emotional, very much a sort of baring of the soul that you're listening to and going through yourself."

If you're not gay, but a committed, caring relative, there is no evidence that the AMA and David Boies and Governor Baldacci are sympathetic to the plight of your loved one who is without insurance coverage.

We Want Your Money But Not Your Catholocism

This one is stolen from Legal Insurrection:

The hysteria, pushed by HuffPo Blogger Alison Kilkenny, over the "threat" by the Catholic Archdiocese charities to terminate services to the poor in D.C., is a typical case of over-simplification and an excuse for Catholic-bashing.

The Catholic charities want to be .... Catholic. Or so they say. I don't know enough about Catholicism to say that the public positions of theArchdiocese are necessary to being Catholic, but the Archdiocese feels it is so. Normally, we let people interpret and apply their own religion.

That is not popular at HuffPo. But there is this little, itty bitty thing called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Damn, that thing can be a pain when there is a social agenda at stake:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ....

D.C. is on the verge of passing an ordinance which requires that entities doing business in the city follow laws related to gay rights and gay marriage which the Archdiocese asserts are contrary to Catholicism. Since the Archdiocese enters into contracts with the city to provide services, and receives some payment for the services (although not enough to cover the full cost of the services), the Archdiocese would have to abide by the ordinance.

So the Catholic charities, faced with choice of doing business in the city providing services for the poor or changing its religion, asked for clear cut exceptions to the law, similar to what has been done in states such as New Hampshire, to protect its freedom of religion:

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Contrary to reports, the Catholic charities are not threatening to withhold all services to the poor, only those which would be subject to the ordinance.

The D.C. council doesn't want to change the ordinance. Fine. That is a fair and appropriate public policy dispute. Politicians can be politicians, and can set state policies. The problem for the city is that the Archiocese adds value to the contracts, meaning they provide services above and beyond what they get from the city.

But don't then complain that the Catholic charities take their services elsewhere, and don't hold the poor hostage to your politics. Fund those services from government money if you don't like the way Catholic charities do their Catholicism.

The legal issues involved are far from simple, although you wouldn't know it from reading the left-wing blogs which are howling with delight over thiscontroversy:

Linda C. McClain, a law professor at Boston University who is studying the same-sex marriage debate nationwide, said the outcome of the standoff between the District and the Church could have far-reaching implications for other states.

"This case really pits the commitment to religious freedom against the importance of anti-discrimination," McClain said. "The courts have been pretty clear that you can't force a religious organization to express a message it doesn't agree with. . . . But it's a tougher case to say you won't be able to provide services to the poor because of this."

What is simple, is that even people unpopular in left-wing circles get the protection of the First Amendment, and get to provide services to the poor as they please consistent with their own view of their religion. Even Catholics.

Obama Now Pandering to Homosexuals

President Obama has taken his ‘audacity’ to new levels tonight, equating sin-based ‘relationships’ to the normal and natural male-female relationship that finds its best fulfillment in God-ordained, procreative marriage.

During the presidential campaign, Obama once punted on an abortion-related query as to when life begins, saying that was above his “pay grade.” Too bad he didn’t attempt a similar evasion on homosexuality. The president has gone way over his pay grade on this one. Homosexual practice is a moral issue, settled by the Creator and His clear design of nature since the beginning of time. Obama can no more declare with any authority that abnormal, homosexuality-based relationships are as “admirable” as normal relationships than he can proclaim that each day will now have 30 hours instead of 24 to increase American productivity.

The president could not be more wrong. Homosexual relationships are not to be admired, they are to be pitied, as immoral “unions” that can only pretend to copy real marriage. Moreover, when the government treats such aberrant relationships like marriage, it risks placing hundreds of thousands of children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design, through “gay adoption” — another misguided homosexual demand advanced by Obama.

His declaration about admiring immoral homosexual relationships alone is the latest in a series of acts of spectacular hubris that have marked his political career.

But Obama has a problem: he sold himself to American electorate as a moderate Christian who believes deeply in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Yet the more he panders and postures to his impatient homosexual allies, the more Obama’s supposed embrace of husband-and-wife marriage becomes a farce — one apparently designed to fool voters who knew next to nothing about his real, radically pro-homosexual and pro-transsexual agenda.

We don’t blame Obama’s “queer” allies for asking: if you truly believe same-sex relationships are as “real and admirable” as male-female relationships, then why NOT support “gay marriage”? Equal is equal, right? The truth, of course, is that homosexuality-based relationships are anything but equal to the real thing: they cannot produce children; they are based on destructive and changeable behavior that has been condemned by God and every major religion throughout civilized human history; and in celebrating their particular sin and attaching it to the noble institution of marriage, they force the teaching of homosexuality and counterfeit “marriage” as normative to schoolchildren in the name of tolerance and equality.

Barack Obama is a man whose “audacity” and pride seem to know no bounds — he even distorts the Bible to justify his “gay” advocacy. In his mind, he knows better than God, or so it would seem. Yet in this respect Obama is not unlike other pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality politicians — mostly Democrats but some Republicans — who take it upon themselves to redefine right and wrong based on their subjective “feelings.” As the prophet Isaiah said long ago, they call good evil and evil good (Is. 5:20).

We hope that Obama’s cynical habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth on the homosexual issue (like other issues) will be his undoing. Now it is time for moral-minded Americans — especially those who voted for Obama — be they Christian, Muslim or Jew; black, white or brown — to let the White House and Congress know that they will oppose all of the Obama Administration’s legislative efforts to create a bogus “civil right” out of the human wrong of homosexuality.

Guess What Else Will Be Covered

How do you cut health care costs?

Obama and proponents of health care reform are suggesting that one way is to reduce services. They aren't putting it that way, exactly. But that's exactly what they are suggesting.

"Unnecessary" tests. "Unnecessary" procedures. "Take a pill instead of an expensive surgery."

We all know the arguments.

Would these methods cut costs? In addition to compromising the quality of our care and shortening our life spans, yes, they probably would. A little. They would also lead to many malpractice lawsuits as doctors tried to explain why tumors and terminal diseases were not detected by tests that are available.

"No money" would have to be the reply. "The system can't cover testing everyone."

While the Obama administration argues the moral superiority of a program that would bankrupt the country while providing a "small measure" of health care coverage to everyone, they avoid the questions of the moral dilemma of denying care to people who need it because it costs too much.

That being said, there are services that they do want to cover that are not now covered by other programs. Medicare and medicaid, for example, do not cover these services. And they are expensive.

What services, you might ask?

In addition to abortion on demand, the weight of the evidence indicates that, in fact, cosmetic ‘gender reassignment’ surgeries for both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who suffer from APA recognized ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ (GID) may indeed be provided – free of charge – courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.

Page 972 of the House version of the bill (H.R. 3200) provides for ‘standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care’ based on ‘sex, sexual orientation [and] gender identity.’ The Senate draft indicates that the government will ‘detect and monitor trends in health disparities,’ requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to ‘develop standards for the measurement of gender.’ (i.e., officially recognize subjectively self-determined ‘transgender’ or ‘transsexual’ gender identities). It further mandates ‘participation in the institutions' programs of individuals and groups from...different genders and sexual orientations.’

So, does ObamaCare expressly stipulate that taxpayer-funded ‘sex-change’ operations will be provided? No, but neither does it explicitly require coverage for heart bypass surgery. Don't forget; we're talking about what's ‘medically appropriate’ here -- and look who gets to make that subjective determination: Your doctor? No, it's bureaucrats within the Democratic Party. It's a liberal-Democrat appointed government ‘Health Benefits Advisory Committee.’ And if you think they're not itching to pay back the homosexual, transgender, and pro-abortion pressure groups that helped get them elected, I've got a house at 1600 Pennsylvania I want to sell you.

Colorado Dem Headquarters Vandalized

Earlier this week, the Democratic party headquarters for the state of Colorado in Denver was vandalized. The attacker left behind anti-health care reform posters. Most of the damage occurred to windows directly in front of pictures of Obama and advertisements supporting health care reform.

It must have been carried out by some angry tea-bagging redneck gun-toting right wing anti-Obama racist, right?

That's what the state Democratic Chairman believed. That's what the press reported. And to this day, the press and the state Democratic Chairman have not backed away from that stance.

The police, on the other hand, have arrested a former Democratic canvasser and charged him with the vandalism. Maurice Schwenkler, who was paid $500 in November to walk door-to-door in support of Democrat Mollie Cullom, a candidate for the state House, was arrested on charges of criminal mischief. Schwenkler was also arrested in St. Paul, MN on the last day of the 2008 Republican convention on charges of unlawful assembly when he and a group of leftists tried to disrupt the convention.

Denver police say they have not "identified a motive" in the incident.

State representative David Balmer told the Denver post that it's possible vandals may have been trying to make Republicans look bad. That seems like a logical assumption to me, given the background of the attacker.

The official Democratic position? The Democratic leadership asserted that this was the "most ridiculous comment" they've ever heard. "This wasn't just any random kind of thing." The official position of the state Democratic party remains that the attacker was a right wing anti-Obama nutjob.

From the sounds of things, the state Dems have egg on their faces.

UPDATE: Reports are now coming out that "Maurice Schwenkler" is a transgendered ... uh .... "person" who may also be known as "Mary Schwenkler" and goes by the name of "Ariel Attack." Mr. or Ms. "Attack" is an anarchist (according to recent reports), who is has been an active democrat in the past, but is upset with Obama for not pushing a radical homosexual activist agenda.

Just a couple of observations: I'm not sure why someone who would describe themselves as an "anarchist" would have been recently involved campaigning for Democrats. I don't advocate anarchy, but by its very nature, anarchy is an extreme right position advocating no government at all, while Democrats are leftists pushing for increased government intervention in our lives.

The other observation is ... and I don't know how to put this .... I want to remain family friendly, but I also just want to understand .... I don't get why someone would CHOOSE which gender they want to be, and then become a homosexual in that chosen gender. Does that defeat the purpose? Can someone explain this to me?

Homos Aim to Antagonize Mormons

A mass-kissing protest near the Mormon church temple Sunday drew a shouting match between gay activists and their critics.

For the second consecutive weekend, about 100 people gathered to stage a "kiss-in" to protest the treatment of two gay men cited for trespassing July 9 after they shared a kiss on the plaza owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both gay and straight couples exchanged kisses during the protest.

Demonstrators were greeted at the south entrance by a group of protesters carrying large signs that denounced homosexuality, prompting a heated verbal exchange.

Police say no one was arrested or cited, despite a large group exchanging kisses by a reflecting pool at the plaza's center.

"We didn't call the police. We didn't do anything," church spokeswoman Kim Farah said.

The church bought one block of Salt Lake City's Main Street to build a plaza in the 1990s alongside the Temple, where Mormon marriages and other religious rituals take place.

Matt Aune has said he and his partner, Derek Jones, exchanged a modest kiss at the plaza 11 days ago, but church officials contend their behavior was lewd.

There is no question in my mind that those who have chosen a homosexual lifestyle will become increasingly militant as they attempt to pressure everyone in our society to accept them as "normal." Say goodbye to more of your freedoms unless this is stopped.

Queer Tee for the Straight Jew

Mark Steyn writes the following article for the National Review. It is a humorous read with a twisted plot.

I'm not gay, I just falsely claim to be, and then complain about being taken at my word.

The etiquette of political correctness grows ever more complex. See if you can follow this:

1) It is now all but mandatory for all kinds of non-gay bigwigs — pandering pols and whatnot — to march in the Gay Pride parade. So, when it emerged that Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (because we all know what a great shake homosexuals get under Islam) would be marching in the Toronto Pride parade, the head honcho of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Bernie Farber, decided he had to be there also.

2) Entering into the spirit of the event, the non-gay Mr. Farber marched in the parade wearing a T-shirt emblazoned, "Nobody knows I'm gay."

3) Also entering into the spirit of things, an allegedly waggish feminist columnist at theToronto Star wrote tongue in cheek of her surprise at seeing Mr. Farber coming out: "I didn't know he was gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that."

4) After consulting with fellow executives at the Canadian Jewish Congress, Mr. Farber sends a formal letter of complaint objecting to the Toronto Star falsely identifying him as gay while being at pains to add that "I take no offence at being misidentified as gay."

5) Despite the fact that Mr. Farber was the first to misidentify himself as gay, the newspaper's ombudswoman devotes an entire column to a characteristically pompous media-ethics snoozefest denouncing the offending columnist for being "tasteless" and getting the paper's apparently brain-dead publisher (my old boss at the Chicago Sun-Times) to do a lot of plonking pro-forma huffing about how the item "fell short of theStar's standards of accuracy, fairness and civility," and reassuring readers that in future systems will be put in place to ensure that the paper is even more unreadable . . . whoops, sorry, I mean, systems will be put in place to ensure that non-gays claiming to be gay are not taken at their word without having their gay status confirmed by gay-accredited orientation-checkers. Whatever.

Meanwhile, a pro-gay pro-Palestinian website thinks that what happened is that Mr. Farber and a bunch of other straight Zionists marched in the parade deliberately to subvert the event's pro-gay/anti-Zionist solidarity. (I think I've got that right.) But the whole sinister plot was scuttled by the uptight Jews' "gay panic."

If that's true, the International Zionist Conspiracy sure ain't what it used to be. Other commentators may be closer to the truth when they suggest Bernie Farber is too dumb to be Jewish.

My own interest in this derives entirely from the fact that Bernie Farber is Canada's most zealous supporter of the thought-police at the "human rights" commission. It would be nice to think the CJC and the Toronto Star could file "human rights" complaints against each other over this until the entire system collapses.