Camel in the Tent: New Jersey Civil Union Findings

We found this post on Beetle Blogger.

We think people should know about it.

“What do we want?” “Equality!” “When do we want it?” Now!”

“All we want is to be equal!” “Stop Treating us like second-class citizens!

Oh…No Wait…Equal Isn’t Enough.
Let’s Call it Marriage!

Camel nose in the tent strategy rears it’s head in New Jersey.

A New Jersey commission on the legal equality of civil unions in that state has weighed in on the marriage debate. After talking to everyone under the sun and not being able to find a single case where the legal benefits of civil unions differed from the legal benefits of marriage, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission has determined that their state should accept gay marriage because civil unions are “too hard to understand”. This is a new tact for same sex advocate groups who have previously stated that all they wanted was to be able to have the same rights as married couples. Now that civil unions are equal under NJ law, the commission says it’s still not good enough. They need to take it to the next level.

The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission (NJ-CURC) was established by the New Jersey Legislature after the passage of the Civil Union Act in February of 2007. The Civil Union Act gave civil unions statewide, all of the legal benefits that were afforded married couples. The duty of the commission was to study all aspects of the Civil Union Act, which authorized civil unions. The Commission’s duties included evaluating the implementation, operation and effectiveness of the act.

There are two obvious problems with the credibility of this study. First, the commission was universally comprised of same sex marriage advocates who elevated anecdotal evidence over actual testimony, and second, they totally missed the boat on the purpose of their commission. They basically heard a bunch of private citizens and gay activist groups saying “it’s not the same… we want the word marriage”, and responded to that rather than just doing their job which was to make sure that there was no legal discrimination against civil unions.

They were supposed to come back with results like, “this law makes same sex unions and marriage equal under the law” or “same sex unions are unequal in the following areas.” What they did say was same sex unions are too complex for hospitals and others to understand so we should make Civil Unions into Marriages. This conclusion was based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely no firsthand testimony.
State Healthcare Facility Director, John Calabria who is responsible for responding to complaints from citizens of New Jersey about medical institutions testified directly to them that “We have received no complaints” regarding the compliance of medical facilities to the Civil Union Act. Although the agency receives 8000-9000 complaints per year, none of them was about being discriminated against in a medical institution.
New Jersey Director of the Division of Taxation, Maureen Adams was given the leading question, “If the state moved to marriage, how that might affect [the taxation of citizens with civil unions] that you’ve just testified to?” She responded, “There would be no fiscal impact, any filing impact, has all been realized with the Civil Union Law.” AKA you can’t give these people anything to make them more equal.

On the other hand, impassioned testimony from Peggy Sheahan-Knee who is the President of the New Jersey State Bar Association agrees with the commission. She claimed multiple people were discriminated against and denied access to their loved ones in medical institutions. The trouble is that she didn’t provide any specific examples in her testimony. Not only that but her integrity is somewhat in question since she also stated emphatically that, “The Civil Union Law fails to provide equal rights to same-sex couples” but was was unable to provide a single example of this. She provided several examples where the law was misunderstood by the public but none where the law failed to provide equal rights.

So what is the whole conclusion to this befuddled mess? “Since civil unions and marriages are the same, let’s give them the same name to reduce confusion.”

Here’s a newsflash for the Commission….reducing confusion was not on the menu, legal rights were. All this time we’ve been hearing ad nauseum about the gay community needing rights, wanting rights, demanding rights. Now they have them and they’re still not happy. Now we have to have the name, marriage, which is what the whole ordeal has been about from the beginning.

It’s not about rights.

The Associated Press release can be found here

Ho⋅mo⋅phobe (n.)

by Beetle Blogger 

Ever wonder where that ubiquitously nifty word that doubles as a spiked club actually came from?  Scientists?  Medical Doctors? English Majors? Nope.  Activists!  Convenient isn’t it?

Psychologist and gay activist George Weinberg coined the term homophobia in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual, published one year before the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Weinberg’s term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies. He was the first to describe the concept as an actual medical phobia.

A phobia is a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it. —Dictionary.com

A medically irrational fear.  Really.  Anyone who disagrees with the idea that homosexuality is normal has a medically irrational fear?  Isn’t that just name calling dressed up to look like something official?

The only irrational thing involved with the made-up word “homophobia” is the etymology.  The word “homophobia” makes absolutely no sense etymologically as the Greek ‘homo’ means ‘the same’, so literally, ‘homophobia’ means a fear of things that are the same, but who are facts to stand in the way of homosexual activists?

I find it fascinating that the term began to be associated with anyone who disagreed that homosexual orientations were “normal” only one year before the APA itself decided to change the idea of homosexuality from abnormal to normal.

Here we have a medical sounding term describing heterosexuals as mentally abnormal, and within one year, homosexual behavior declared healthy and normal.  Does that not strike anyone else as odd?  Tell me again that the activists had no hand in the APA changing their tune… ’cause even on sale, I’m not buying it.

Check out this article I came across at the New Yorker’s Family Research Foundation.

–Beetle Blogger

Is Hating “Haters” Hateful?

By Scott Lively, J.D., Th.D.
www.defendthefamily.com

Hate has a pretty bad name in the world today.  No one wants to be called a hater, especially Christians, which is probably why we get accused of it all the time by our opponents.

Homosexuals are especially fond of calling people haters.  They even invented the word homophobia, which means hate and fear of homosexuals, envisaged as a mental illness (a phobia is an anxiety disorder).

I hate being called a homophobe.  It has such an ugly connotation.  It’s especially unpleasant because, as a Christian, I’m supposed to have a reputation for loving people, not hating them.  So I’ve worked really hard over the years to try to get the homosexuals to stop calling me a homophobe.  I’ve pointed out the difference between hating people and hating their behavior (loving the sinner but hating the sin).  They hated that.  Then I tried “walking my talk” by taking an ex-“gay” man who was dying of AIDS into my family.  My wife and I and our children loved and cared for him during the last year of his life.  They hated that even more.

Then I began asking for guidance from homosexuals themselves:  “Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?” I asked.  “What if I just agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin no worse than any other sex outside of marriage?”  “No, that’s homophobic,” they replied.  “Suppose I talk only about the proven medical hazards of gay sex and try to discourage people from hurting themselves?” “No, you can’t do that,” they said.  “How about if I say that homosexuals have the option to change if they choose?”  “Ridiculous” they answered. “Maybe I could just be completely positive, say nothing about homosexuality, and focus only on promoting the natural family and traditional marriage?”  “That’s really hateful,” they replied.

After a while, I realized that the only way I could get them to stop calling me a homophobe was to start agreeing with them about everything.  But here’s my dilemma:  I honestly believe the Bible which says that homosexuality is wrong and harmful and that all sex belongs within marriage.  I’ve also read the professional studies and know that “gay” sex hurts people because it goes against the design of their bodies.  And I’m friends with a number of former homosexuals who are now married and living heterosexual lives.  Do I have to give up my religion?  Ignore scientific facts?  Betray my friends?  Is that the only way to avoid being called a hater and a homophobe?

There’s no escape.  A homophobe is anyone who, for any reason, disapproves of homosexuality in any way, shape, manner, form or degree.  This leaves me with just two choices:  agree that everything about homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy, moral and worthy to be celebrated OR be labeled as a mentally ill, hate-filled bigot.

Am I wrong? Is there any way to openly disapprove of homosexuality without being a homophobe?  “Gay” leaders, please set me straight on this.

Because if I’m right, that means the “gay agenda” is to stop everyone from following the Bible regarding sexual matters.  It is, after all, their stated goal to “stamp out homophobia.”  No more religious freedom.  It’s also to suppress scientific research that has reached conclusions they don’t like, especially if it helps people to change their homosexual orientation back to a heterosexual one (ask the doctors and scientists at narth.com what they’ve had to endure).  If it discourages homosexuality, even by implication, it’s homophobic and can’t be used.

There’s a queer reasoning behind all of this.  Homosexuals call me names like bigot and homophobe, condemn my religion, mock my rational conclusions about social issues, impugn my motives, display intense hostility toward my actions, and curse my very existence, all under the justification that I’m a “hater.”  But if I’m a “hater” for civilly opposing what they do, why aren’t they haters for uncivilly opposing what I do?  Such a double standard, in the context of a public debate on “civil rights,” is not just hypocritical, it is surreal.

I admit I have some hate. I hate watching people kill themselves with preventable diseases like AIDS.  I hate seeing children being steered toward unhealthy lifestyles.  I hate having my pro-family views distorted by dishonest journalists, politicians and academics.  And I hate seeing my God being treated like a homophobe for what He teaches in His Bible.

So if you’re not going to stop calling me a “hater” for wanting homosexuals to be saved and healed, or for opposing their political agenda, let’s at least see a little more of that famous “American sense of fair play” in the public debate on this issue.  Hatred of “haters” is hateful too.