I've been having a conversation with a woman named Carlotta for about a month now.  I met her at Talkwisdom.  She has a blog called Christocentric.  She is totally against gay marriage.  Totally, even though she is a divorced woman (and by that I mean that Christ only allowed divorce for one reason and God itself said that it hated divorce).  Today I mentioned a lesbian couple who were vacationing in Florida with their children.  They were together for 18 years.  One of the women collapsed and the parents of that woman would not allow either her partner or her own children to see their mother.  The hospital refused to recognize her partner (you can read about it here).  A priest allowed a 5 minute visit, but that was it.  And that woman died. 

I mentioned this story to Carlotta.  Her response? 

"About the couple above described in your example.  I just don't have the sympathy for people in that situation because they weren't in a legal marriage to begin with.  Although I wouldn't have been so cruel and to at least let the partner visit her lover in the hospital.  But there are some penalties people have to go through if they don't have a legal marriage."

No sympathy for two people who had been together for 18 years and then denied visitation rights because of some religious belief?  Anyway, I wrote back to Carlotta and told her that her very words were the reason why I fight for gays and lesbians to be able to marry--these very penalties that these poor women had to go through should not be there.  What a horrible penalty these women had to go through.  I can't imagine the absolute agony of not being able to see Doug who might be on the verge of death.  I'm afraid that that is where reason is left behind and emotion takes over--nothing on this earth or heaven and hell for that matter could keep me from seeing Doug.  They would have to shoot and kill me to stop me from seeing him.  I mean that totally and absolutely.   I thought I would have to go through a fight when Doug was taken to the hospital after his bike accident.  I went up to the emergency room window and the woman asked me who I was.  I told her that I was his partner and there was no blink of the eye or anything.  She told me that they just brought him in from the ambulance and I could see him as soon as he was brought in.  And that is exactly what happened.  But I was ready for a fight if they weren't going to let me in.  And there was a movie I saw a number of years ago that showed two elderly women who were lesbians being split apart in nursing homes because they weren't considered to be a couple.  I would rather die than allow that to happen to me and Doug. 

I suppose I will have to deal with the Florida mentality when I go to Michigan to see my family.  There isn't even domestic partnership protections in that state.  If something happens to me, my marriage in California won't be recognized.   That is why we need a fundamental change at the federal level.  It will happen eventually, but not soon enough to prevent tragedies from occurring like they did in Florida.

We got back from our trip Friday night.  We left Idaho on Wednesday morning and drove right to Eugene Oregon.  We spent a nice day in Eugene.  Part of that day was spent wine tasting with Doug's parents. That was fun.  Saturday was spent recovering from the long drive home (about 11 hours, with a stop for lunch and coffee in Yreka, CA).  It was a scorching hot day in Northern California on our way home.  It was 109 and we both thought that the thermometer on the car must be wrong.  We stopped to gas up near Redding CA and it read 111! 

So we're home now and Zak really missed us.  He has been very vocal since we have been home.  Poor thing.  And I am off to Michigan tonight and will be back on the 30th.  It should be a good trip.

I do want to say too that although I remember the trip we just had, it is totally possible that I have been hallucinating since Cass and Justin have been telling the real story of our trip in the two previous postings.  It is a story truly worthy of Mystery Theater!  I can't wait to hear how it all turns out...

Hi everyone,

I see that there has been lots of discussion since we have been away!  We left for Idaho on the 7th for Doug's family reunion.  We've been having a great time here.  There isn't a lot of phone reception or internet connection, so that explains the silence.  We'll be back home soon and then I am off to Michigan, but there I will have an internet connection.

Well, I have finally finished my newest mosaic.  It is the first time I have tried to do a human face.  I think she turned out pretty good!  By the way, that's Mary in case you haven't figured it out (I think the halo would give it away!).  I've made her for Doug's parents.  We'll be seeing them on Friday.

And as you can also see, the picture is a bit blurry.  I couldn't find my tripod...

Christine at TalkWisdom has started up yet another blog.  This one is called Protect Biblical Marriage.  I've been leaving lots of comments over there.  But her latest post made me want to make some comments here.  She puts up some excerpts from an article written by Michael Craven, at the Center for Christ and Culture:  The Teaching Ministry of S. Michael Craven.  I don't know who this S. Michael Craven is, but his 'article' is so poorly put together that I am surprised that anyone will read it (except those who just want to hear the anti-gay message and not think about what Craven is writing).  If you want my opinion, bad sources makes for bad articles.  And in this case, this article is really, really bad. 

First of all it is interesting that he doesn't believe that it should just be 'the Bible tells me so' argument that Christians should use to combat gay marriage. 

So let's look at some of the sources this guy uses in his 'defense of marriage' article (that he wants people to discuss at their dessert and discussion after church).  The first source he uses was written in 1934!  Yes, that is 73 years old (Sex and Culture, London: Oxford University Press written by Joseph Daniel Unwin).  That, right off the bat, makes the alarm bells go off in my head.  I have to ask myself, why is this person using a source for his argument that is that old?  Craven uses that old source to show that civilizations 5000 years old which had a strong 'sexual ethic' had a stronger culture.  In Part Two, Craven states right off the bat:

As discussed last week, the noted anthropologist, J. D. Unwin conducted what is arguably the most exhaustive examination of sexual ethics and their affect upon society.

That is total hogwash.  No one would believe this statement--except someone who doesn't have a clue.  Mr. Craven would be laughed out of any academic conference if he dared say that.  No one who even thinks about cultures would believe that someone writing in 1935 would be an expert, say, on Roman sexual studies.  No one.  That alone should show that this whole 'article' is nothing but junk science, much like what Paul Cameron writes.

Mr. Craven continues:

Attempting to promote monogamy among homosexual couples by rearranging marriage ignores the fact that homosexual acts are patently obvious distortions of the human biological design. We are born biologically male or female and as such we are sexually dissimilar but in complimentary ways. The male/female sexual union works, in other words. This is true of every species on earth. Every living organism has a particular way of reproducing and rearing offspring; its anatomy is biologically designed to support that way. If one believes we are products of an evolutionary process, then homosexual acts are a deviation from the procreative design and homosexuality is therefore a genetic defect because it fails to propagate the species. If one holds to the belief that we are created, then it defies the design and intent of the Creator. Either way homosexuality violates the given design.

Wait just a second.  I thought this was supposed to be a biblically based argument for straight marriage?  I wonder if Mr. Craven has actually read Matt. 19:12, where Jesus, his God, states:

Matt. 19:11 "But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

So God has created people who are eunuchs--that is, men who cannot reproduce.  Craven claims to be a minister, and claims that this is a biblical defense of marriage. But he hasn't read his Bible.  God made eunuchs.  They cannot reproduce.  So what Craven is implying is that God has created a deviation, since of course eunuchs cannot reproduce.  They don't propagate the species (in his words).  So what Craven is saying is that God's own design for creating eunuchs violates what he believes is the 'given design.' 

He finishes Part II with this statement:

"Unwin’s research and human history confirms that acceptance of sexual perversion always follows the modification of heterosexual monogamy within marriage."

As I said above, bad sources lead to bad papers.  He is relying on a nearly 75 year old published book to make his conclusions.  As I said, no one would believe that a 75 year old book could tell us very much about ancient societies.  Therefore his conclusions are bad.

And that leads us to Part III, which Craven again quotes from that 73 year old book.  A case in point is what he has to say next:

The Greek, Roman, Babylonian, and Sumerian empires are just a few examples of cultures that began with a strong marriage-centered monogamy and later degenerated into liberal sexual practices (including homosexuality), which, according to the sociological and anthropological evidence, was central to their downfall. 

He clearly is relying on Unwin for this information.  Did the Greeks really start out with monogamy and revert to something else?  No.  All you have to do is read Homer to see some examples of Greek 'monogamy' and to see an example of Greek homosexuality (Achilles and Patroclus).  Did the Romans?  No.  And it is unlikely that Unwin knew very much about the Sumerians in 1935.  It wasn't until the 1940s when there was real movement on understanding the ancient languages used by the Sumerians.  So much for using them to show that cultures started off with monogamy and then "degenerated into liberal sexual practices."

Craven then switches sources.  He moves to Pitirim A. Sorokin, a Russian born sociologist (working at Harvard) who wrote a book in 1956:  The American Sex Revolution).  Again, couldn't Craven find a more up-to-date study on sexual practices in the U.S.?  It appears that he is only going to look at sources that agree with him, even though they are amazingly out of date.  And Craven does the unthinkable in academics--he uses an out of date source and then extrapolates to what is current.  And in this case it is same sex marriage. 

He continues in Part IV.  From his bad sources he makes bad conclusions:

"Any deviation from this proper relationship for sex (i.e., marriage), as well as its proper biological design (i.e., homosexual), is a perversion of human sexuality; history demonstrates that such deviations will inevitably undo those societal goods associated with marriage and the natural family."

At least to sources that are so outdated they are unusable...

But then Craven uses a source written in 2000--The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially , by Leslie Waite and Maggie Gallager.  But does he?  No.  He cites a bit from a book review written by Robert Browning.  Now if he were my student, I would send this paper back because no one should be using a book review for a source.  Why didn't Craven just go to the original source?  He calls Waite the "eminent University of Chicago sociologist" but does Craven really know this?  It looks like he never even read the book...which I find surprising since Maggie Gallagher is the leader of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, an anti-gay group (she was associated with David Benkof--the so-called gay man who was against gay marriage). 

Craven then quotes from a much-used (by the anti-gay crowd) study by Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 26 [1997].  Craven uses the quote:

“Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men”

However, the authors of this article state (in their rebuttal to those who are misusing their research):

"In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996," wrote the study’s authors.
The letter from the researchers continued, "It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive measure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday."
Stated the study authors, "It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man’s risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population." 

Box Turtle Bulletin has done a good job at looking at the misuse of this article.  In fact, the authors of this study have publicly refuted the use of this study by the anti-gay crowd.  You can read it all here.  The last sentence of this rebuttal makes a clear point that Craven and those who print this article ignore:

Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.

So Craven uses old, old books and misuses a medical study, all to show the sanctity of marriage is good.  Well, so far he isn't doing such a good job. 

And again Craven uses old statistics to make the point that marriage makes women safer:

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the US Department of Justice, of all violent crimes against domestic partners (male/female) that occurred between 1979 and 1987.

Does Craven know what year this is?  Why use 20 year old data?  Hasn't the National Crime Victimization Survey made any new updates to its research? 

Craven then misuses more statistics.  This time he uses a gay and lesbian resource center.  He writes:

Abuse within male homosexual relationships is as high as 46 percent (“Domestic Violence in Gay and Lesbian Couples,” www.psychpage.com/gay/library/gay_lesbian_violence). Among lesbian couples, some research shows that the lifetime prevalence of physical assault among women living with female partners was 35.4 percent. Given that same-sex “marriage” would exist in name only without its essential defining elements, its application to homosexual couples would, most likely, not serve to arrest the high rates of domestic abuse among gays. 

But Craven only reports part of this study.  If you look at the introduction to this website, you will read:

On the one hand, these numbers may not be accurate. For example, some research shows that the lifetime prevalence of physical assault among women living with female partners was 35.4%, compared to 20.4% among women living with male partners. However, looking deeper, women living with female partners were almost three times more likely to report having been victimized by a previous male, rather than a female partner (IPARV, 2002). Thus, some sources carelessly misquote research to support their negative views of gays and lesbians, simply to promote their own agenda.

Craven is guilty of misrepresentation (and notice that he doesn't mention the 20% of heterosexual females that are abused by their male partners!).   

His next study does not mention the date that it was published.  He just states:

According to studies, couples that cohabitate prior to marriage have substantially higher divorce rates, ranging from 50 to 100 percent higher (Axinn and Thorton, “The Relationship Between Cohabitation and Divorce: Selectivity or Casual Influence?” Demography 29, 357–374).

This was done in 1992.  Why doesn't he mention the date of publication?  Methinks that Craven doesn't want people to know.   And when I see a large page range like this, I know that Craven did not read this study.  I see this in my student's papers all the time.  Why didn't he give the exact page number to his specific information?  Because he is getting this information from somewhere else (instead of reading the source). 

At the end of Part IV Craven states this:

In regards to homosexual couples, the concept of fidelity is a popular myth. In the book The Male Couple, the author reports that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, “Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships” (McWhirter, The Male Couple [Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall] 252, 253).

Want to take a guess when The Male Couple was published?  Just remember that Craven wants you to believe that what he just used is current for the gay male population now, in 2008.  The Male Couple:  How Relationships Develop was published in 1985.  Yes, 22 years ago.  He acts like the data found in this book is applicable to gay men now.  Can't Craven find some new numbers?  You have to ask yourself why he did not do this.  In my view it is shoddy research. 

And the shoddy research and sources goes on.  Craven then cites a study by Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute ( a conservative think-tank).  Kurtz writes:

The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we’ve come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that? (Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: The ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage collapses,” The Weekly Standard, 2 February 2004.)

Craven then states:

Indeed, in Sweden the out-of-wedlock birthrate is 55 percent, Norway is 50 percent, Iceland is approaching 70 percent, and in Denmark 60 percent of firstborn children are born out of wedlock....And what does this have to do with SSM? All of the Scandinavian countries mentioned embraced de facto same-sex marriage, beginning with Denmark in 1989. The out-of-wedlock birth rates mentioned experienced their most dramatic increases in the decade following the acceptance of SSM in these countries. The separation of marriage from procreation and parenting was already increasing, as it is here; SSM only widened the separation. “In Scandinavia, gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood is acceptable” (Kurtz, “The End of Marriage”).

The problem with Kurtz is that his study has been debunked as well.  Craven states:  "All of the Scandinavian countries mentioned embraced de facto same-sex marriage, beginning with Denmark in 1989. The out-of-wedlock birth rates mentioned experienced their most dramatic increases in the decade following the acceptance of SSM in these countries."  However, that is a flat-out lie.  Again, you can read about this lie at Box Turtle Bulletin.  Here is the chart from Norway (taken from Box Turtle Bulletin):

As you can see yourself, civil unions were enacted in 1993.  The chart shows the rates of birth outside of marriage.  As you can see, the rate goes up slightly after civil unions were enacted, but from 1976 to 1991, BEFORE civil unions, the birthrate outside of marriage skyrocketed.  You could make an argument that civil unions actually stopped the growth of out of wedlock births!  And as it turns out, Kurtz has been questioned about this, but could not give an answer. 

Well, so much for the Defense of Marriage in Craven's article.  As I said in the beginning, if bad sources are used, bad results will come.  And this 'article' is bad on all fronts.  Old sources.  Bad sources.  Misrepresented sources.  I would think that those who want to make an argument against gay marriage could come up with something better than Craven.

And finally, most of what Craven wrote recently was a rehash of something he had written in 2006. 

I often look up the financial records of these so-called Christian groups.  All of them are in the business of selling God and some of them make a hefty profit from doing it.  A few groups that I can think of that fit this bill are the American Family Association (which I often call the Don Wildmon Family Association) and Stephen Bennett Ministries.  I noticed on a blog that I have started reading (TalkWisdom) that an article was posted on the "horrors" of gay marriage.  The article was written by Gary DeMar and can be found here.  He runs a group called The American Vision.  Their mission is:

"Restoring America’s Biblical Foundation—From Genesis to Revelation (Psalm 11:3)."

So I decided to see how much money was pouring into the coffers of a group that wants to "restore" the foundation of this country.  What I found is not that different from what I found with the American Family Association--there are big bucks to be made selling God, and most of it goes to a few families.  Here is the info on The American Vision, found at Guidestar.org and is free and open to public viewing. 

They brought in ~$561,000 in contributions (boy, that must really irk Peter LaBarbera!!!); about $148,000 on Program Service revenue and a whopping $510,000 on the direct selling of their goods (i.e., the selling of God).  Their income for 2006 was about $1.229 million and some change.  Their total expense for 2006 was $1.201 million. 

So where did they spend all of this money (these numbers are rounded)?

$253,000 went the Executive Officers (which I'll break down in just a bit).  They spent another $141,000 on salaries of people not the executive directors.  They don't give a list of everyone they paid, which makes me suspicious.  Of course, they don't have to list anyone who makes less than $50,000, so they don't.   

I don't want to get into all the numbers, but here are some highlights of this group's spending habits just for 1 year:

Nearly $24,000 on supplies

~$12,000 on telephone bills

~$102,000 on postage and shipping (yes, that is correct!!!)

~$53,000 on occupancy

~$28,000 on equipment and rentals

~$34,000 on printing

~$27,000 on travel.  How much traveling can these people do???)

~$156,000 on conferences (yes, that number is correct as well)

~$27,000 on bank and credit card fees!!!!

~$106,000 on Biblical Worldview costs (whatever that is)

~$14,000 on contract labor

~$60,000 on promotional information

~45,000 on miscellaneous expenses! 

The also list nearly a million dollars on expenses related to their magazines, conferences and radio programs, and this number includes the cost of speaking engagements (over ~$100,000 worth!)

O.k., so who is spending all of this money and who is making money of this 'non-profit'?

Brandon Vallorani, the Executive Vice President (who claims to work 50 hours/week).  He gets $66,350.

Gary DeMar, President (55 hours/week).  He gets $86,230.

Ira Moore is the Chairman (5 hours/week).  No salary

Eric Rauch, Director of Communications (45 hours/week). He gets $50,344.

Jared Vallorani, Director of Outreach (45 hours/week).  He gets %50,111.  And notice he has the same last name as the Exec. VP.  They are brothers

And Kent Thelen is the secretary (1 hour/week).  No salary

They also had 4 people who donated more than $21,698:

Richard B Taylor, Elsworth McIntyre, Eric Swartz, and David Melville

Now here is more information on what a family affair this non-profit really is.  As I mentioned, Brandon Vallorani and Jared Vallorani are brothers.  These two brothers, as well as Eric Rauch and Kent Thelen are part owners of Tolle Lege Press (see below). 

Ira Moore, Richard Vest, Kent Thelen, Gary DeMar, and Brandon Vallorani are part members of Creation Books, LLC.

This 'non-profit' made two small loans of $701 to American Vision Communications and $683 to Creation Books, of which I've mentioned that the executive directors are members of. 

And here is the family affair information:

This 'non-profit' paid Carol DeMar, who is the Director of Curriculum Development, ~$18,000.  She is the wife of Gary DeMar, the President.  That made their combined income over $104,000.

And not to be left out, James DeMar, the son of these two, was compensated over $16,000 for "internet/media development."

They also paid Amy Vallorani, the Offsite Transcription worker, $145.  She is the wife of Jared Vallorani.

They paid Jan Vallorani $941 for 'temporary office work.  She is the wife of Brandon Vallorani.

Finally, they paid Max Thelen $2,322 for 'Web development.'  He is the son of Kent Thelen. 

Now about Tolle Lege press:  It is run by a father-son team:  Raymond Vallorani and Brandon Vallorani (as well as Jared K. Vallorani, Jared M. Cost, Eric Rauch, Linda Vallorani and Joyce Lambert).  All they do is reprint out of print books.  It is located in West Virginia.

Creation Book Publishers is, not surprisingly, located in Powder Springs Georgia, the same location as The American Vision.  Their address is 3150-A Florence Road Suite #3 • Powder Springs, GA 30127.  There is no information on the website about who runs this publisher.  But American Vision loaned them $683 in 2006, the year the company was created. 

So there you have it.  The selling of God.  It makes a pretty hefty profit for some people.  They bleat on and on about the problems in this country, but I don't see a thing mentioned about greed--which is something that should not be practiced by real Christians.  I guess in all their bleating about homosexuality they never bothered to look up mammon...

It has been a good, but busy weekend.  Doug had worked very late Wednesday and Thursday.  We had a friend, Tim, stay with us this weekend and we were hoping to drive to San Francisco Friday night to meet him, but Doug was whipped.  He just came home, ate dinner and went right to sleep.  He slept until about 10 pm when Tim arrived at our place.  Tim has his own blog called Balancing Boyfriends.  We met Tim and his husband Tony at a bar in the Castro called Badlands.  We hit it off right away.  At dinner a few days later Tim told me that he blogs.  I had no clue what that word even meant, so I can blame my obsession on blogging and reading blogs all on Tim!

Anyway, on Saturday we drove south an hour to Santa Cruz.  We had an appt. with an accountant there and while Doug was taking care of that, Tim and I wandered around the downtown area.  I can't wait to go back.  It was fun.  We then had lunch and drove back to quickly change and then Doug and I drove off to San Francisco for a surprise birthday party for our good friend Brian.  Tim had a function to go to in Tiburan.  We then went out to dinner with our friends Michael and Thierry.  After that Doug and I met up with Tim at Badlands. 

Today has been very slow.  We don't drink (or I should say it is extremely rare that we drink alcohol) so I can't blame being tired today on that.  But the weather here has been great, so I can't complain about having a lazy Sunday brunch with Tim before he flew back to Chicago and sitting outside reading in the yard.

I did check out some of my usual blogs.  One, which I left a number of comments at, is called TalkWisdom.  I've written about the blog and Christine before, so I won't bore you with all the details now.  She has started up yet another blog called Protect Biblical Marriage.  I hope that I was able to leave the first comment there:

Why should your religion, which is clearly a choice, be forced on people who don't believe the same thing as you? Do you think we live in a religious police state? I wonder how you would feel if another major religion like Buddhism was able to gather enough signatures to make meat-eating unconstitutional? Would you be persecuted by that? Or would you accept the will of the people? I already know the answer.

It seems to me that if people support this, they better be prepared to see similar ballot issues that will force other beliefs on the rest of the population.

Anyway, I suggest that people leave comments at this new blog.  We know what side they are on.  It is hard for me to understand their position--or at least understand why they think it is o.k. in this country to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us.  What they seem to want is only for their own religious beliefs to be recognized and no one else's.  God forbid that someone of the Jewish, or Islamic faith get too much control in this country!  :)

I knew it wouldn't be long before this guy blamed the earthquake in Los Angeles on Tuesday on gay marriage.  He apparently has been on 'tour' promoting his updated 'book.'  Let's hope that when this thing is published, he can at least stop getting so very excited about death and destruction that he can check his facts.  Below is what he had to say yesterday:

California

A moderate 5.4 earthquake it Southern California. It was located just 28 miles from downtown LA. This is very significant as an earthquake of this power is a strong indication of a bigger one. This shows the area is under tremendous stress. Many times in the past an earthquake like this hits a few months prior to a devastating quake. This coincides with massive wildfires still burning in Northern California. Remember, the massive fires started right after the state began marrying homosexuals. The state attorney general is also tapering with the initiative to reverse homosexual marriage. She changed the titled to read: "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry" This was done to help defeat the amendment. This occurred today, the same day as the earthquake. I believe time is running out for California as God in His holiness is warning of the judgment that is right on top of this state. Look what is happening: fires, drought, earthquakes, foreclosure etc.

Strong 5.4 Quake Shakes Southern California 7/29/8

Prop. 8 'rework' could spell defeat 7/29/8

Fire destroys 25 homes near Yosemite 7/29/8

Southern California Will Dry up Without a Drought Solution 7/28/8

John McTernan John McTernan's Background at 12:05 AM 0 comments

Labels: Daily Digest

News flash for Mr. McTernan--our attorney general is a man--Jerry Brown, and as well as being our attorney general, Jerry Brown used to be the governor of California. 

Geez--so I am responsible for fires, drought, earthquakes, forclosures and 'etc.'  I am just so darned special.  :)  But I do have to wonder why the earthquake that I helped make happened a full day AFTER I left L.A.?  You think that God would have planned it a bit better--or maybe He didn't want to ruin my honeymoon...

I thought that one of the most treasonous acts in this country is to advocate that the government be overthrown.  Isn't there a law against this?  If so, someone should throw Orson Scott Card in jail for treason.  If you don't know him, OSC is a science fiction writer.  He has been banned from our household for a while now because he absolutely hates and detests glbt people.  He claims he doesn't, but he does.  Period.

I just got an email from Jody, at doorq.com about the latest antics of this homohater.  This isn't the first time that Card has written against gays and lesbians.  But this time, he has turned rabid.  And he advocates for overthrowing the government.  He doesn't seem to be very smart, either.

He states, in a piece he wrote for the Mormon Times:

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.
These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

Interesting.  Maybe O. Scott Card should stop writing sci fi (including this current 'article') and start reading a bit of history.  Someone should probably tell him that the court system is as much a part of our democracy as the rest of it.  I suggest first he read the Constitution which sets up our democratic court system. 

I also find it interesting his statement about marriage:

Here's the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

"Permanent or semipermanent"????  What the hell is a "semipermanent bond?"   I wonder if Mr. Homohater Scott Card is divorced? 

And like the rest of the anti-gay crusaders, he brings up the children:

There is no natural method by which two males or two females can create offspring in which both partners contribute genetically. This is not subject to legislation, let alone fashionable opinion.

I wonder if Mr. Scott Card has thought about what his words mean to two straight married people who use 'artificial' means to have their children?  From his 'article', it appears he has not or will not consider this (he is a Mormon, so maybe it is against Mormon beliefs???).

And here is his treasonous statement:

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary...If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

As I said, Mr. Scott doesn't seem to be very bright.  He can remove his kids from public school and take them to the nearest Mormon school and have them taught all about alien planets and that Jesus visited North America (apparently by U.F.O.). 

And finally, here is his threat to our government (I've underlined and bolded):

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

And who exactly is a danger to our democracy?  Me getting married, or Orson Scott Card stating that he will destroy our government?  I hope that someone will alert the appropriate people in the government that this man is a real threat to our democracy.  You have to wonder how OSC will destroy the government?  And all of us had better be worried because after he destroys it, he wants to  replace it with his brand of government--possibly the Mormon States of America, with him as dictator? 

So the American Family Association called for a boycott of McDonalds.  How about a boycott of all things Orson Scott Card?  He is a menace.  He is a danger.  And no publishing company should be associating himself with this guy.

One of my friends, Cass, sounds like she isn't doing very well.  Her Space is here.  Her friend Brandy said that she was on oxygen yesterday.  I hope she gets well soon and back to blogging!

Cass was so sweet to me and Doug--she gave us our first wedding gift.  She also got me re-hooked on Mystery Theater.  When I was growing up, I used to listen to the Mystery Theater any night I could.  It started at 11:07 pm.  They were radio shows and to me they were terrifying.  The scariest one I ever heard was The Fall of the House of Usher.

Anyway, I hope you get well soon Cass!

I am guessing that Mark at Chesterstreet is finally taking a course on Greek or Latin.  At least that is what I am guessing from his last two postings (of course, anyone can look up the definition of a word--this is probably what he was really doing).  He called people morons and showed the Greek word for fools.  He thinks it is o.k. to call people morons because God did.  Good for him.  Today he also writes an extremely nasty post about Rob and Justin at The Political Spectrum.  He calls it "The Political Rectum: solid waste's best friend."  He calls them morons (which must be his biblical word of the week because he can't stop saying it).  He then writes:

Please excuse the Title of this post - it had to be done.
Rectum: The word rectum comes from the Latin rectus meaning straight (which the human rectum is not).

Boy, Mark must have something up his own rectum because he is getting nastier and nastier as time goes on.  Maybe he sees the writing on the wall with all of his anti-gay activities.  Anyway, not to be outdone in the word use, I thought I would look up a few words that Mark might be interested in using in the future:

Marcens, marcentis,:  withered, drooping, weak, feeble, exhausted, languid,

or Marceo (a verb) to be withered, droop, to be enfeebled, weak, faint

or Marcesco to whither, shrivel up, fade, to become weak or enfeebled

or marcidus, lacking rigidity, drooping; withered, rotten

Withered, droopy, tired, enfeebled, rotten?  Yep, sounds like good definitions to me...

He also left this comment at "talkwisdom" about a so-called deleted comment left by Christine (I say so-called because I don't know if it is deleted or not):

Justin and Rob (the web sites writers) are utter morons. The fact they deleted your comment - and both of them claim to be followers of Christ; shows how utterly depraved the "gay christian" movement is. Good work Christine!

Well, here is another word that Mark can look up when he is studying these languages:  hypokrisis, which is an actor on a stage.  An actor pretends to be something he is not.  It is where we get our word hypocrite from.   I'm sure that precious Mark has never, ever deleted a comment from his Objective Truth blog. Nope.  Never. 

We just watched a really good movie called Stardust.  It was really all about good versus evil.  I probably never would have picked it up but we made some friends in West Hollywood this past weekend and they recommended it.  I thought it was fantastic.  There is a bit of the movie where one of the characters describes love.  I couldn't help but think of the cast of characters I wrote about today (see below posts) and I have to wonder if they ever loved someone.  I often think that the people who are incredibly anti-gay have never loved anyone.  I don't see how they could because if they did, they wouldn't write what they do.  Anyway, that is just a thought...

But do watch the movie.

Earlier today I blogged about Roy, a so-called Christian who popped up at Joe Brummer's blog and seemed to think he had to save everyone.  He pretended to be nice, but in reality thought we were all demons and deserved to be crushed and our heads cut off.

Now to add to this list is a woman who sent me a message out of the blue around the second week of July.  She wanted to be my friend.  She was a so-called Christian.  Anyway, we messaged back and forth a bit and she asked me to send her some details of my life.  So I did and I never heard back from her.  I told her I got married nearly two weeks ago and I figured she didn't like it and wouldn't respond.  So I went to her blog today and this is part of what she wrote:

I've been talking with a man from California recently whom I met on the internet after watching a certain video.  I found his site and sent him a comment and that started a dialog with him. After my last comment I haven't heard from him. Guess he didn't like what I said to him regarding his marriage to another man.  Sorry to hear he's not interested in hearing from me, but there is no way in this world and the world after did God create a man to be married to a man and a women to be married to another woman.

For starters, she never sent me anything after July 15. The 15th was the last I heard from her.  I sent her my details on the 16th and she never responded--at least nothing ever came my way and she had my blog address and she had the ability to leave a message within my blog. 

Anyway, whatever she think she sent had something to do with my marriage.  And with a comment like "but there is no way in this world and the world after did God create a man to be married to a man and a women to be married to another woman", then it is probably a good thing her so-called message never got to me.  I find it incredibly arrogant for some stranger to send me an email to pretend to be nice, take advantage of my niceness and then turn around and write this.   But here is some news for Carla--men can and do marry men, and women can and do marry women, whether she likes it or not or whether she believes that some God doesn't like it.  Justice always prevails and in this case, gays and lesbians will achieve their full rights throughout this country.  It may take a bit of time, but I have no doubt about this.  People can hide behind their religion and make excuses when they don't like specific groups, but the good will always win.

So I left this comment for Carla:

 

July 28 8:04 PM

(http://kkaatz.spaces.live.com/)

Carla,

I don't know what you are referring to in terms of sending me a comment.  The last comment I received from you was on July 15. You asked me to send you some information about myself, which I did (in quite a long comment) on July 16.  I never heard a thing from you.  You claim to have sent one, but I never received it.  Please copy your message to me and send it to me with the original date. 

Oh, and you don't sound so nice now as you did when you sent me that first email.  I don't care if you don't like my marriage to my husband.  That is no concern of yours.  Your marriage is of no concern to me. 

You can believe what you want.  Just remember--it is only a belief.  I am not interested in being converted by some stranger.  If that is why you contacted me, I am sorry you wasted your time.  However, if you contacted me to get to know me better, then send me another message.

Kevin

So we'll see what Carla has to say about that.  I've been extremely nice to that woman and even gave her tips about blogging and using Windows Live Writer.  Oh well.  There is always hope that these people will see beyond their own noses. 

And she can certainly send me more messages.  But this time I am just going to tell her like it is.  I usually pussyfoot around people like this because I don't want to hurt their feelings.  I had a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness and he was probably one of the most unstable people I have ever met.  I withheld my views from him on many subjects because I didn't want to be the person to push him over the edge.  I still won't do this, but I'm not going to be quiet when some stranger starts lecturing me on my marriage...

Last week someone named Roy (Roy Martin | roydmartin@cableone.net) left a disturbing message at Joe Brummer's blog.  You can start reading them here.  He just jumped right into Joe's blog and let everyone have it.  Of course, Roy claims to be a Christian, and a reformed person as well.  He claims he has been in prison.  But now he is on a rescue mission.  He claims his step-son is gay and that he informed his wife of that.  Now the poor kid is having to deal with a reformed step dad who isn't happy his step son is gay. 

Soon after Roy left his tirade, he seemed to calm down a bit.  After a few days he claimed it all too much for him and he wouldn't be leaving comments at Joe's blog.  I decided to send Roy an email.  Here it is (sent July 23):

Dear Roy,

I just read your comment that you will not be coming back to Joe Brummer's blog.  I really hope that isn't the case.  I think you have a lot to offer people with your comments, even though there is disagreement.  If you haven't been blogging very much, you will realize that you have to ignore some comments that are against you.  I've been called many names on many blogs and in the beginning I was pretty upset, but it sadly seems to go with the territory.  I doubt that people would treat each other badly if we were all face-to-face.  Unfortunately that isn't the way the internet works. 

Lots of gays and lesbians have been hurt, not only physically but mentally from family and so-called friends.  So when someone steps in from the other side, anger can come out against that person pretty quickly and in this case it was taken out on you.  My advice is to move beyond it.  I am guessing that Joe Brummer will also say something similar and I would also hazard to guess that he will ask you to keep coming to his blog and having conversations with us.  We only have one world, and we all have to live in it.  If more and more people interact, then that can only be a good thing.

Take care,

Kevin (Kaatz)

So that was a couple of days ago.  Now here is what "Roy" left at Mark's Chesterstreet about us:

Roy said...

Mark
How refreshing it is to visit your site after being on Joe Brummers for several weeks.That was like a journey into hell being face to face with satan and all his demons.
Sorry but thats just how it made me feel.I did try though to have compassion in their present state but it just didnt happen.Keep on fighting the fight Mark.Youll hear from me again soon.
Your bro in Christ
Roy

7/27/2008 10:30 AM

And later in the day Roy writes:

Roy said...

Mark
I am left with the thought and conclusion of Joe Brummer and his followers or any one that agrees with him of finding a poison spider in my house or a rattlesnake in my yard.Should I say to the snake in compassion,"will you please not bite me and leave my yard?"No!
Im going to cut its head off and smash the spider.
Im not suggesting violence on gays.Im saying that Joe and his kind are like a rattlesnake in a playground.
Roy

7/27/2008 4:45 PM

Roy says he isn't for violence against glbts, but what would he do to that rattlesnake in the playground?  He would smash its head.  Maybe he needs to rethink his language or just admit his violent feelings.

Anyway, so I send him a nice email and he calls me a poison spider or a rattlesnake?  Gee thanks Roy.

Now the scary thing about Roy is to remember that his step son is gay.  So he is calling his stepson a rattlesnake and a spider which needs to have its head cut off or crushed.  That is very scary.  I can't imagine living in a house with someone who thinks that. 

However, he will find good company at Chesterstreet.