jaysays.com |

because simon isn’t cool anymore.
Subscribe

Archive for the ‘Stupid Things People Say About Gays’

Stupid Things People Say About Gays, “I Just Can’t Work With F*gs.”

July 09, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

If you follow gay news as much as I do, you’ve likely been overwhelmed with the plethora of happy endings happening all over the country: New York state passed anti-bullying legislation; in the Gill case, the Federal Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional; two proteins were isolated that makes a cure for HIV/AIDS much less fantasy and much more plausible; the Today Show caved to pressure to remove the heterosexuals only rule from it’s Modern Wedding Contest; and those wacky Presbyterians might let gays be clergy and have sex too! All of this was enough to cause my head to spin in circles while trying to pick the next blog post.

But one headline caught my attention that wasn’t happy news.  The “HK bar Bull Moose Saloon” in New York City, which recently re-opened as a gay bar, suddenly suffered a set-back when one of the investors (and owner),  decided he couldn’t work with gays.  While it’s possible that the brilliance of homosexuals made him feel inferior as a businessman, the owner’s banishment of gay clientele and the gay investors was much more likely the result of his own homosexuality. (Ok, I admit I’m stretching it there – but not much).

According to a “friend of a friend” styled blog posting over at the Village Voice, Dave Sheeran, the owner in question, locked out the gay investor initially claiming that he didn’t expect the bar to be so loud; however, according to the linked blog, Sheeran later admitted, “I just can’t work with f*gs.”  It’s outrageous, isn’t it?  To think that in 2010 a New York City bar owner would make such a declaration about who he can and cannot work with?  However, comments on the blog call into question the truth of the story as Sheeran has not responded to inquiries.  Now, we can tolerate the news, can’t we?  It may not be true so it seems easier to swallow.

Whether or not Dave Sheeran made these comments, we should be outraged, but not just by Dave Sheeran.  We should be outraged that the United State’s number one employer stamps “I just can’t work with f*gs,” into law and fired 428 employees in 2009 because of their sexual orientation.  I’m referring, of course, to the U.S. Military.  The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy does exactly what Sheeran has allegedly done.  It denies gays and lesbians employment because of their sexual orientation based on the theory of “I just can’t work” with the gays.  Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton (who’s administration implemented the discriminatory policy) have all declared, “I just can’t work with f*gs,” by allowing it to remain policy.

We’ve also been fighting for a fully inclusive employment non-discrimination act.  Many have declared ENDA dead, but others are refusing to give up the fight.  This piece of legislation would, if we can get it out of the legislative black hole, protect people like Sheeran’s investors from being discriminated against based solely on their sexual orientation.  The roughly 26% of Americans who remain critical of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”) argue that sexual orientation and gender identity are choices and not protection of a class of people.  However the current ENDA already protects based upon many “suspect class” identifiers, including religion.

Tags: ,

Stupid Things People Say About Gays, The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 8

June 16, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

Today, closing statements began in the Prop 8 trial.  Prior to the closing arguments, Judge Walker submitted numerous thought provoking questions to both sides.  Both sides answered all questions, although many of the questions were directed only to one side of the issue.  The Defendant-Intervenors (the ones who oppose marriage equality), responded, in my opinion, very poorly to all questions, but one stood out.  Judge Walker’s second question asked:

Aside from the testimony of Mr. Blakenhorn, what evidence in the record supports a finding that same-sex marriage has or could have negative social consequences?  What does the evidence show the magnitude of these consequences to be?

The equality opponents essentially provided three summary answers on the negative social consequences of same-sex marriage:

  1. same-sex marriage will change the public meaning of marriage;
  2. a change in the social meaning of marriage will unquestionably have real world consequences;
  3. whatever those consequences are, the will be momentous.

They then quote Professor Cott’s explanation of what will happen if same-sex marriage is adopted: “One could point to earlier watersheds, but perhaps none quite so explicit as this particular turning point.”  So, what are those watersheds Professor Cott refers to?  Here are the examples given:

‘there can be no doubt that the recognition of gay marriages will affect as great a transformation in the nature of marriage as that from polygamous to monogamous or from arranged to unarranged marriage.’ (Quoting Joseph Raz)

‘Same-sex marriage is a breathtakingly subversive idea.’ (Quoting E.J. Graff)

‘enlarging the concept [of marriage] to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new.’ (Quoting William Eskridge)

‘the shared societal meaning of marriage… has always been the union of a man and a woman.  To alter that meaning would render a profound change in the public consciousness of a social institution of ancient origin.’ (Quoting from Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006)

It sounds like they have no answer, right?  They cannot give one specific example of a real consequence to allowing same-sex marriage and resort to the tactics of declaring marriage about children and procreation, not love and commitment.  In fact, they even admit that they can’t answer the question, stating, “Professor Cott also admits that it is not possible to predict with precision the consequences that will flow from same-sex marriage.”  They then go on to grasp at more straws and declared that allowing same-sex marriage will “change its focus from the needs of children to the desires of the adult partners…”

Anyone else hear the gong?

As if that isn’t painful enough, they begin relying on marriage statistics that have no bearing, or are so insignificant that they can’t possible be a proper litmus test, including an annual 0.7% decrease in marriage from 2000 – 2008 in the Netherlands after an annual 0.2% increase in marriages in the years from 1994 – 2000.  Note that there is no consideration given for economic factors, such as a severe global recession – it’s simply the fault of gay marriage.

But perhaps most significantly, what is likely a “typographical error” in their submission, the anti-equality folks state, “Refining marriage to include same-sex unions…”

Yep… making marriage equal would certainly “refine” marriage.  I’m very happy we found a point of agreement.

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

Stay up to date on all things Prop 8 at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker Website, with live blogging from Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is “Forcible Sodomy”

May 14, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

In 2008, the House Armed Service personnel subcommittee held the first hearing since 1993 on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which discriminates against openly gay/lesbian military persons.

During her testimony at the hearing, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, invoked the argument against a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell we hear all too often – that a repeal would result in :”exotic forms of sexual expression”, “forcible sodomy” and declaring a repeal would lead to a “sexualized atmosphere.”

In her written statement to the House Armed Services Committee, Donnelly wrote:

When a female soldier reports an incident of sexual harassment or abuse, she enjoys the presumption of truthfulness. But under the new civil rights standard, if a male soldier reports an incident of homosexual harassment or abuse, he will face the suspicion, if not the presumption, of unacceptable attitudes toward fellow soldiers who are gay.

Since charges of harassment will be met with counter charges of “bigotry” or “homophobic bullying,” heterosexuals whose values are violated will hesitate to file complaints, lest they be suspected and probably accused of attitudes that violate the new “zero tolerance” policy, favoring homosexuals in the military.

In messy, emotionally-charged disputes such as this, commanders themselves will be accused of homophobic attitudes if they take the side of the heterosexual person over the homosexual one. Who is bullying whom? In close quarters it wouldn’t matter—the effect on unit cohesion would be the same.

The first problem with Ms. Donnelly’s statements, which are echoed still today in arguments against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, is that she’s ignored the fact that female soldiers do not enjoy the presumption of truth.  In a 2004 report, the Denver Post found that some 200,000 women were sexually assaulted while serving in the armed forces. In 2006, there were 2,974 cases of rape and sexual assault in the services and only 292 of those cases went to a military trial.  According to the group, STAAAMP, over 40 U.S. Generals, Admirals and Colonels have been given immunity by U.S. Courts for serious criminal sexual behavior.  Presumption of truth, Ms. Donnelly?  It seems not.

The second problem with her argument is that she implies that a heterosexual person who has been raped by someone of the same sex would not come forward for fear of being labeled a bigot.  While it’s true that many victims of rape or sexual abuse do not come forward, the idea that the fear of being labeled “anti-gay” stayed their voice is ludicrous.  According to the 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey, only 38 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials.  Thus, a staggering 63% went unreported.  In many of these cases, victims felt that their reputations would be tarnished and that they would be blamed for the attack against them. One rape victim described her fear of coming forward this way:

It would be my word against his. It was something I’d rather not have to deal with while I was in college. All my friends all believed me. I didn’t know if the police would. I didn’t know if the school would.

In her third point, Donnelly suggests that Commanders would be subjected to being homophobic if they prosecuted a rape case against a gay service member.  This is another ludicrous allegation with no supporting facts and is clearly an effort to blame the victim or prosecutor, rather than the perpetrator.

The lies and fear from the opposition are spreading.  They are desperate to hide their prejudices in tangled, twisted logic that will appeal to the masses.  No outlandish claim or lie is too far for these people as they must defend their right to hate without saying their truth, that they just don’t like gay people.  The repeal of laws against people based solely upon individual characteristics is the “right” path and we will succeed.  Even those opposed to equality know this, and they are afraid.

For additional information on rape and sexual assault in the military, I direct you to the following resource: Refusing Rape.

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

n 2008, the House Armed Service personnel subcommittee held the first hearing since 1993 on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which discriminates against openly gay/lesbian military persons.

During her testimony at the hearing, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military readiness, invoked the argument against a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell we hear all too often – that a repeal would result in :”exotic forms of sexual expression”, “forcible sodomy” and declaring a repeal would lead to a “sexualized atmosphere.”

In her written statement to the House Armed Services Committee, Donnelly wrote:

“When a female soldier reports an incident of sexual harassment or abuse, she enjoys the presumption of truthfulness. But under the new civil rights standard, if a male soldier reports an incident of homosexual harassment or abuse, he will face the suspicion, if not the presumption, of unacceptable attitudes toward fellow soldiers who are gay.

Since charges of harassment will be met with counter charges of “bigotry” or “homophobic bullying,” heterosexuals whose values are violated will hesitate to file complaints, lest they be suspected and probably accused of attitudes that violate the new “zero tolerance” policy, favoring homosexuals in the military.

In messy, emotionally-charged disputes such as this, commanders themselves will be accused of homophobic attitudes if they take the side of the heterosexual person over the homosexual one. Who is bullying whom? In close quarters it wouldn’t matter—the effect on unit cohesion would be the same.”

The first problem with Ms. Donnelly’s statements, which are echoed still today in arguments against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, is that she’s ignored the fact that female soldiers do not enjoy the presumption of truth. In a 2004 report, the Denver Post found that some 200,000 women were sexually assaulted while serving in the armed forces. In 2006, there were 2,974 cases of rape and sexual assault in the services and only 292 of those cases went to a military trial. According to the group, STAAAMP, over 40 U.S. Generals, Admirals and Colonels have been given immunity by U.S. Courts for serious criminal sexual behavior. Presumption of truth, Ms. Donnelly? It seems not.

The second problem with her argument is that she implies that a heterosexual person who has been raped by someone of the same sex would not come forward for fear of being labeled a bigot. While it’s true that many victims of rape or sexual abuse do not come forward, the idea that the fear of being labeled “anti-gay” stayed their voice is ludicrous. According to the 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey, only 38 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials. Thus, a staggering 63% went unreported. In many of these cases, victims felt that their reputations would be tarnished and that they would be blamed for the attack against them. One rape victim described her fear of coming forward this way:

“It would be my word against his. It was something I’d rather not have to deal with while I was in college. All my friends all believed me. I didn’t know if the police would. I didn’t know if the school would.”

In her third point, Donnelly suggests that Commanders would be subjected to being homophobic if they prosecuted a rape case against a gay service member. This is another ludicrous allegation with no supporting facts and is clearly an effort to blame the victim or prosecutor, rather than the perpetrator.

The lies and fear from the opposition are spreading. They are desperate to hide their prejudices in tangled, twisted logic that will appeal to the masses. No outlandish claim or lie is too far for these people as they must defend their right to hate without saying their truth, that they just don’t like gay people. The repeal of laws against people based solely upon individual characteristics is the “right” path and we will succeed. Even those opposed to equality know this, and they are afraid.

For additional information on rape and sexual assault in the military, I direct you to the following resource: Refusing Rape.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: Mississippi isn’t Burning – It’s Flaming

March 11, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

School board members in Fulton, Mississippi have taken a harsh stance against girls dating girls.  On February 5, 2009, the school board circulated a memorandum stating that same-sex couples will not be allowed to attend prom, in direct violation of legal protections against discrimination.  Constance McMillen, however, wanted to take another girl to the prom as her date.  She then met with the assistant principal and the district superintendent but was told that, under no circumstances would she be allowed to bring another girl to the prom, and if she showed up and her presence made the other students “uncomfortable”, she would be thrown out.

This little act by the school board alone isn’t surprising.  School have fought and lost this battle repeatedly.  The difference here is that the school decided that, since a publicly funded institution can’t legally discriminate against people, it would just cancel prom altogether.  Here’s the best part – supporters of the districts discriminatory policies are claiming that Constance, not the school, has ruined it for everyone.

In one comment on parent dish, user charlotteofthebarbarycoast had this to say:

I think that the offensive thing is how this girl has decided to make her political statement at a Senior Prom and ended up ruining it for everyone else. *** If this dumb girl had any brains, she would have asked 2 of her homosexual male friends to double date with her and her tuna, and they could have just gone to the prom. Instead, she decided to make a national incident out of it, and now people all over the country are at odds trying to decide what is right, while the rest of her classmates are having one of their important memories tainted by this one inconsiderate child’s self made problem.

I can’t help but wonder how much in taxes charlotteofthebarbarycoast would pay in order to support a public institution that denied her the right to participate in that institutions events.  Those supporting the school district have all but ignored two very basic facts: (1) Constance is a student at the school; and (2) LGBT people pay taxes (often at a higher rate than married heterosexual persons) and those taxes fund schools.

Further, Constance didn’t ruin anything for anyone, the school board ruined it.  Constance is merely attempting to enjoy the same “important memories” that other students are allowed to make.  So charlotteofthebarbarycoast, I think that the offensive thing is how you and your cohorts have decided that your precious memories are more important than the precious memories of others.

Your ego, by the way, is a sin… Bitch.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 7

February 11, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

It didn’t take long for the opponents of equal rights to scream “BIAS!” when the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the justice presiding over the Perry case (the Prop 8 case) is a homosexual.  On the blog for the leading anti-equality organization, the National Organization for [Heterosexual Only] Marriage (NOM), its executive director, David Duke Brian S. Brown, had this to say about the justice:

He’s been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee.

The painfully obvious truth is that had the Judge presiding over the trial been a heterosexual, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant (as has been the case in most trials against equality), and had the queers yelled fowl as often and in the same manner that the bias-based organization NOM has yelled fowl, we would be considered radical extremists intent on denying the religious freedoms of all — oh wait, we already are considered that to NOM!!!

Since a straight judge would be biased against the gays, and a gay judge is purportedly biased against the straights, here’s my theory:  Only a bisexual judge can be unbiased and see both sides of the story… of course, even an unbiased person should be able to easily recognize the repugnant lies being told by Hate, Inc. about us queer folk.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 6

January 28, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Headline, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

To begin with, let’s take a brief quiz.  For each statement listed below, answer which person made the statement

By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Same-sex marriage would meet the stated needs and desires of lesbian and gay couples who want to marry. In so doing, it would improve the happiness and well-being of many gay and lesbian individuals, couples, and family members.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

The answer may just surprise you.  All of the above statements were part of David Blackenhorn’s book, The Future of Marriage.  Mr. Blackenhorn is an “expert” for the Defendants in the Proposition 8 trial – which means that he is against same-sex marriage in spite of all of the above statements being, in his opinion, true.

Therefore, it seems as though Mr. Blackenhorn would concur with the view that same-sex marriage will significantly benefit many gay couples (as well as many single LGBT people by way of reducing hate crimes and social stigma).  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackenhorn makes an amazing leap of logic from those points.

He then goes on to tell us, by way of his testimony in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case that he believes it is “almost certainly true” that:

…gay and lesbian couples and their children would benefit by having gay marriage.

In spite of all this, he does not support same-sex marriage because:

…the rights of gays and lesbians take second place to the needs of an existing social institution. *** I will choose marriage as a public good over the rights and needs of gay and lesbian adults and those same-sex couples who are raising children.

In other words, in spite of the fact that there are enormous benefits of marriage that are currently being denied to same-sex couples and their children, the rights of those people are secondary to those of heterosexual couples simply because same-sex marriage doesn’t provide a benefit to the public… or rather, it isn’t part of the public good.

Mr. Blackenhorn elaborates on what he means by public good, by stating that it, “serves important public purposes.”  By way of his agreements and statements on the benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples, he seems to contradict himself in asserting that such marriages won’t “serve an important public purpose.”

Look back to the quotes above and we can see those things that Mr. Blackenhorn believes don’t serve important public purposes:

  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to have “fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.”
  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to have a reduction of violent crimes (i.e. “anti-gay hate crimes“).
  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to embrace the ideas of “tolerance and inclusion.”
  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to “improve the happiness and well-being of many gay and lesbian individuals, couples, and family members.” [emphasis added]

It seems then that Mr. Blackenhorn’s testimony in the trial embraced the following as important public services: (1) to have more children growing up in state institutions; (2) to increase violent crimes; (3) to become intolerant and exclusionary; and (4) to diminish the happiness of a large percentage of American families.

Are those the “family values” they keep telling us about?

o being with, let’s take a brief quiz.  For each statement listed below, answer which person made the statement

By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 5 | Prostituion and Sex with Kids

January 22, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Headline, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

Yesterday, William Tam, who previously won a jaysays.com Stupid Things People Say About Gays nod, not only won the title again while be questioned by Attorney Boies, but set the bar to a new level.  During testimony, Tam advised that he thinks legalizing gay marriage would result in legalizing prostitution.

Boies: You said that you thought Prop. 8 would lead to legalizing prostitution. Why?

Tam: *** I saw some homosexuals hanging around there. [Regarding “Measure K”, which if passed by voters, would have stopped the enforcement of laws against prostitution in California, among other things.]

Boies: You know that Measure K has nothing to do with Prop. 8.

Tam: Yes.

Nevada legalized prostitution in some incidents (areas with a population under 400,000 people) way back in 1937, but Nevada does not allow same-sex marriage. In Rhode Island, prostitution was considered legal until 2009, but Rhode Island does not allow same-sex marriage.  Rhode Island is also only one of the two New England states that do not allow same-sex marriage (Maine being the other).

Currently, states that allow same-sex marriage include: New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont.  None of the states in the United States that allow same-sex marriage have legalized prostitution.  In fact:

  • New Hampshire made prostitution a crime in Sec. 645:2 NH RSA.
  • Connecticut has about eight sections of its penal code that make prostitution (or acts leading up to prostitution) illegal.
  • Iowa has four laws which prohibit prostitution and/or other sex trade offenses (such as pimping or leasing property for prostitution)
  • Massachusetts, a liberal state and the first state in the United States to recognize gay marriage, has 11 laws on the books dealing with prostitution or related offenses.
  • Vermont, excluding definitions of and the penalties for prostitution or related offenses, has four laws on the books.

It seems like those states that allow same-sex marriage don’t allow prostitution; whereas states that do or did have legalized prostitution recently, don’t allow same-sex marriage.   Sorry Tam – your argument fails.

In his testimony, Tam also stated that legalizing gay marriage would result in legalizing sex with children.

Boise: You told people that next will be legalizing sex with children. That’s the homosexual agenda. Do you believe this?

Tam: Yes.

All of the states which currently allow same-sex marriage have set 16 years old as the age of consent (a common age in the United States for “consent”).  Many of those laws have other laws surrounding that age requirement such as the age difference between the parties (thus preventing consensual sex between a 15 year and a 16 year old from being a crime).  No state in the United States has set any age lower than 16 as the age of consent.

But Tam didn’t stop there with his argument that the homosexual agenda will result in legalizing sex with children only he clarified that it’s the “liberal agenda” that’s to blame:

I’m afraid of the liberal trend. Canada and Europe are liberal and they allow age of consent 13 or 14 and children can have sex with adults and each other.

Our neighbors to the north, Canada, recognize same sex marriage and are generally considered to be a liberal country.  The age of consent throughout Canada is 16, very similar to the United States.  On questioning by Boies, Tam eventually admitted that allowing same-sex marriage in Canada did not result in changes to its law on age of consent.  He denied having any knowledge of what happened to the laws in Europe on consent once same-sex marriage was legalized.

Let’s educate Tam: The age of consent in the Netherlands and Belgium is 16 and Sweden is 15, those are three of the European Countries that allow gay marriage.  The other is Spain.  While it is true that Spain has a very low age of consent (being 13 years old) that law was actually amended in 1999 to increase the age of consent from its previous requirement – 12 years old!

It would seem then that “liberal” doesn’t necessarily equate to sex with children, but much to Tam’s dismay, we can argue that conservative countries do allow sex with children.  Take a look at Saudi Arabia, for example.  Saudi Arabia has no age requirement for consensual sexual activity; however, the law does state that the people who have sex must be married.  Generally, people may marry in Saudi Arabia as soon as they reach puberty – that could potentially be 10 – 11 years old!

There’s also our staunchly Catholic neighbor to the south, Mexico.  The only place in Mexico where same-sex marriage is allowed is in Mexico, D.C.; a very recent development which has caused significant controversy from the citizens.  A very large number of Mexico states have set the age of consent at 12 years old – no gay marriage, but sex with a 12 year old is fine.

Again, “Yes on 8” people seem to make outlandish claims with no supporting facts.    Perhaps it’s because the only book they care to read is the Bible – or perhaps when they read another book they take it out of context, like they do the Bible.

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

esterday, William Tam, who previously won a jaysays.com Stupid Things People Say About Gays nod, not only won the title again while be questioned by Attorney Boies, but set the bar to a new level. During testimony, Tam advised that he thinks legalizing gay marriage would result in legalizing prostitution.

Boies: You said that you thought Prop. 8 would lead to legalizing prostitution. Why?

Tam: *** I saw some homosexuals hanging around there. [Regarding “Measure K”, which if passed by voters, would have stopped the enforcement of laws against prostitution in California, among other things.]

Boies: You know that Measure K has nothing to do with Prop. 8.

Tam: Yes.

Nevada legalized prostitution in some incidents (areas with a population under 400,000 people) way back in 1937, but Nevada does not allow same-sex marriage. In Rhode Island, prostitution was considered legal until 2009, but Rhode Island does not allow same-sex marriage. Rhode Island is also only one of the two New England states that do not allow same-sex marriage (Maine being the other).

Currently, states that allow same-sex marriage include: New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. None of the states in the United States that allow same-sex marriage have legalized prostitution. In fact:

§ New Hampshire made prostitution a crime in Sec. 645:2 NH RSA.

§ Connecticut has about eight sections of its penal code that make prostitution (or acts leading up to prostitution) illegal.

§ Iowa has four laws which prohibit prostitution and/or other sex trade offenses (such as pimping or leasing property for prostitution)

§ Massachusetts, a liberal state and the first state in the United States to recognize gay marriage, has 11 laws on the books dealing with prostitution or related offenses.

§ Vermont, excluding definitions of and the penalties for prostitution or related offenses, has four laws on the books.

It seems like those states that allow same-sex marriage don’t allow prostitution; whereas states that do or did have legalized prostitution recently, don’t allow same-sex marriage. Sorry Tam – your argument fails.

In his testimony, Tam also stated that legalizing gay marriage would result in legalizing sex with children.

Boise: You told people that next will be legalizing sex with children. That’s the homosexual agenda. Do you believe this?

Tam: Yes.

All of the states which currently allow same-sex marriage have set 16 years old as the age of consent (a common age in the United States for “consent”). Many of those laws have other laws surrounding that age requirement such as the age difference between the parties (thus preventing consensual sex between a 15 year and a 16 year old from being a crime). No state in the United States has set any age lower than 16 as the age of consent.

But Tam didn’t stop there with his argument that the homosexual agenda will result in legalizing sex with children only he clarified that it’s the “liberal agenda” that’s to blame:

“I’m afraid of the liberal trend. Canada and Europe are liberal and they allow age of consent 13 or 14 and children can have sex with adults and each other.”

Our neighbors to the north, Canada, recognize same sex marriage and are generally considered to be a liberal country. The age of consent throughout Canada is 16, very similar to the United States. On questioning by Boies, Tam eventually admitted that allowing same-sex marriage in Canada did not result in changes to its law on age of consent. He denied having any knowledge of what happened to the laws in Europe on consent once same-sex marriage was legalized.

Let’s educate Tam: The age of consent in the Netherlands and Belgium is 16 and Sweden is 15, those are three of the European Countries that allow gay marriage. The other is Spain. While it is true that Spain has a very low age of consent (being 13 years old) that law was actually amended in 1999 to increase the age of consent from its previous requirement – 12 years old!

It would seem then that “liberal” doesn’t necessarily equate to sex with children, but much to Tam’s dismay, we can argue that conservative countries do allow sex with children. Take a look at Saudi Arabia, for example. Saudi Arabia has no age requirement for consensual sexual activity; however, the law does state that the people who have sex must be married. Generally, people may marry in Saudi Arabia as soon as they reach puberty – that could potentially be 10 – 11 years old!

There’s also our staunchly Catholic neighbor to the south, Mexico. The only place in Mexico where same-sex marriage is allowed is in Mexico, D.C.; a very recent development which has caused significant controversy from the citizens. A very large number of Mexico states have set the age of consent at 12 years old – no gay marriage, but sex with a 12 year old is fine.

Again, “Yes on 8” people seem to make outlandish claims with no supporting facts. Perhaps it’s because the only book they care to read is the Bible – or perhaps when they read another book they take it out of context, like they do the Bible.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 4 – The $ Game

January 14, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

Many of the ridiculous arguments being used by those that support discriminatory laws banning marriage between two consenting adults based solely on the gender of those adults don’t apply specifically to the “gayness”; however, those arguments have been created solely to exclude same-sex couples from marriage and therefore seem to qualify as things being said about gays.

On Day 4 of the Proposition 8 trial, the Defendants (those opposed to same-sex marriage) attempted to make the Plaintiffs’ expert, San Francisco’s Chief Economist, Edwin A Egan, say that allowing gay marriage will increase the costs to the city.  The theory of the Defense being that clerks will be required to use their time to issue marriage licenses to more people and print more marriage licenses increasing paper and ink costs.

This argument not only fails at “common sense”, but also fails economically speaking, because there is a fee to obtain a marriage license in California (as pointed out by Egan).  That fee covers the costs associated with the clerk’s time, printing and other such expenses that would otherwise be borne by the city.

Let’s review, just in case we don’t know how much time/money would be required to issue a marriage license. Here are a few points that those stretching their imagination to prove that gay marriage will cost the city more money should consider:

  • A marriage license is a one page document.
  • 50 pages of nice quality “certificate” paper is about $10.00 (about $0.20 per page).
  • A high yield, rather expensive, black toner cartridge costs about $60.75 and will print approximately 7,000 pages (give or take depending on density) – that’s less than $0.01 per page, but will bulk it up to the full penny for this argument.
  • According to my local county clerk’s office, if I were to come with the completed marriage license application in hand, all required documentation and the correct fee, the total time required to have the license issued will not exceed 15 – 20 minutes (minus my time spent in line should there be one).
  • The median salary for a county clerk in the United states is $27,300.00.  But for this one, we need to make some assumptions: we will increase that median by 20% due to the high standard of living in California (particularly San Francisco);  assuming that the Clerk has worked for the city for some time and has a lot of education and experience to back them up, we’ll increase the salary another 10%.  In that case, our hypothetical clerk makes $36,036.00 per year – roughly $18.77 per hour.
  • At $18.77 per hour, the cost in salary for the clerk to spend 15 – 20 minutes issuing a marriage license would be approximately $6.26 (on the upper end).
  • Making another assumption to inflate the numbers even further in favor of those that oppose same-sex marriage, let’s assume the clerk must spend an additional 15 minutes scanning and properly filing the marriage license, that’s about another $4.70 cents to pay the Clerk – for a grand total of $10.96 being paid to the clerk for issuing one marriage license.
  • The fee that a couple must pay to have a public marriage license issued in San Francisco is $93.00.

At this point, the argument they make starts to get very boring in trying to disprove them – why?  Because it’s obvious there is no logical argument in the “money” game.  Gay marriage = money to the city and local businesses through marriage tourism.

Crunching those numbers further though, the total cost to the cityfor the issuance of one marriage license would be approximately $11.17 indicating that, when the City of San Fransisco issues one marriage license, it’s profit is approximately $81.83.

All that being said, how much should our government stand to profit before it gives full, legal recognition to all citizens?

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 3

January 13, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart took the stage in the Proposition 8 trial this afternoon with a redirect examination of Yale Professor Chauncey.  During the examination, Ms. Stewart asked Professor Chauncey to read from a Vatican statement regarding same-sex marriage.  These are the words of the Vatican:

Allowing children being adopted by gay couples would do violence to these children.  Their condition of dependency would stunt their full human development.

According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, between 8 million and 10 million children are currently being raised in gay and lesbian families.  Some studies indicate that an estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting children.  If all of those interested were able to adopt children and did so, homes would be had for TWO MILLION homeless or orphaned children.  That’s a lot of kids.

Further, an estimated 4% of all adopted children in the United States are adopted by gay or lesbian parents.  Considering numerous states in the U.S. have laws against such adoption, imagine the flood of homes that could be provided should all states recognize same-sex marriage and cease discriminating against same-sex couples during adoptions.  The social benefit would be overwhelming.

Of course, the issue raised by the Vatican is that the 8 – 10 million children that are being raised by gay or lesbian parents have been stunted from reaching their full human development.  This argument has the same ugly ring to it as the argument recently made by a Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to perform a marriage ceremony for an interracial couple because he is concerned for the welfare of their offspring since interracial children are not accepted by society.  Apparently, this Justice of the Peace is wholly unaware of the United States President’s ethnicity.

Of course, we all know that Ally Sheedy turned out terribly.  The actress didn’t live up to her potential at all thanks to her lesbian mother, Charlote.  In fact, her youth was so wasted, that she didn’t start performing until the age of 15!!!  Had her mother been a heterosexual, perhaps things would have been better for Ally and she would have started performing at a very young age, as did Jon-Benet Ramsey, the child of heterosexual parents.

We also know from history that King Charles I of England didn’t live up to his potential either.  After all, he was only King of England, not like he became “Pope” or something more wholesome.  Perhaps had his father and grandfather not been “queer” he would have gone on to be Emperor of the World instead of just “King of England.”

And lets not forget Curtis Jackson.  We all know that he was completely stiffled from growing up and living a productive life.  I for one am not going to tell him that he hasn’t fully developed as a human, though.  Of course, the Vatican may not be familiar with the name Curtis Jackson – perhaps we should tell them his more commonly known name, 50 Cent (or as I like to call him, silver change).  What would have become of 50 Cent if he had heterosexual parents?  Perhaps he would have become a country-western singer instead, eh?

There is some truth to what the Vatican argues – history does show us that the children of gay and lesbian people often suffer a terrible fate.

For example, Alexander Aegus, the son of Alexander the Great, was murdered by Cassader… by the Vatican’s standard, this was because of his homo-dad, not a struggle for power.

There’s also the late, great Dorothy Dandridge, whose life was so tragically cut short by an accidental overdose of Imipramine at only 42 years old.  This is obviously a result of her mother having been a lesbian.

The point here isn’t that children of LGBT people are better than children of straight people.  The point is that the children, like all children, develop independently of their parent’s sexual orientation, some for better, some for worse.  There is no correlation between greatness and parental sexual orientation.

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 2

January 12, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

Yesterday, the judge and lawyers assembled in the courtroom at 8:24 a.m. Pacific Time to debate, and ultimately decide, upon the rights of same-sex couples to marry.  The case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, resulted after a “majority” of California voters decided that the judicial granting of equal marital rights to same-sex couples violated their sense of… uhm… of… well, ego.

Since the trial started (and even before) we’ve heard the opponent’s of equality claiming that the majority spoke and such majority rule must be honored.  In fact, the news keeps repeating an annoying little phrase whenever they talk about the case, referring to Proposition 8 as a “voter approved” measure.  Unless the manipulation of the vote allegations are true, then “voter approved” measure and “majority rule” are correct terms to use when referring to Proposition 8.  It is true that a small majority of voters decided to approve a measure that would stop recognizing a civil institution for some of the population.

Those that voted in favor of Proposition 8 have been bemoaning activists against the discriminatory measure and argue that, in a Democracy, majority rules.  Opponents of Proposition 8 retorted that majority rule over a minority results in tyranny (among other things), and that if majority had ruled with respect to interracial marriage, 90% of Americans would have denied the right based solely upon the race of those wishing to enter into marriage.  In other words, Barack Obama, being a mixed race man, would not be allowed to marry Michelle Obama, being that she is not mixed race if “majority” had ruled rather than the Supreme Court (presuming, of course, our President even came to being).

But that’s just a little clarification to bring us up to date.  The majority spoke again last week with regard to the televising of Proposition 8.  In fact, according to the Courage Campaign, 138,574 people, at Judge Vaughn Walker’s request, provided their vote with respect to the televising of the trial.  Of the 138,574 votes, 138,542 supported the trial being televised, 32 opposed.  (Note: The “for” votes do not include those that sent letters or called outside of the petition hosted by the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action, thus the numbers “for” televising the trial are likely substantially higher).

Those that have been arguing for majority rule lost… BIG TIME.  Unfortunately, in spite of this loss, the trial is not being televised.  The losers (those not in the majority) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the televising of the trial.  The Court is set to rule tomorrow based upon the law – not the “majority opinion.”  Oh the hypocrisy.

So, today’s stupid thing people say about gays is, “majority rule.”  While not specific to LGBTQ people – it certainly is applicable in this instance.

[Another Note: The column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays (of which this post is part of) uses the term “Gay” inclusively.  It’s always been so and will always be so.  jaysays.com and all of its contributors strive to be fully inclusive and leave no freak behind.  More Stupid Things People Say About Gays can be found here.]