Ruben shows his beef; Fight Back NY to give him a grilling - Good As You:: Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor

Ruben's shown his beef; Fight Back NY to give him a grilling - Good As You:: Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor

Senator Ruben Diaz takes on Fight Back New York: 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ruben Diaz Sr. Calls on Biblical Warriors to Fight Gay Marriage (towleroad.com)
• NY State Sen. Ruben Diaz Welcomes Attacks From LGBT Advocates (lezgetreal.com)

Ruben Diaz for State Senate Committee 
July 28, 2010 

Dear Brothers and Sisters: 

On Tuesday, September 14, 2010 primary elections will take place in the Democratic and Republican parties to re-elect or elect people to represent our community in the New York State legislature. 

These election results will be vital to us as Christians and God-fearing people to keep our family, moral and traditional values that our ancestors left us and that the Bible teaches us. 

Senators Shirley Huntley, Frank Padavan and Hiram Monserrate were instrumental in joining me to defeat the gay marriage bill in the New York State Senate. Today the State of New York does not have legalized gay marriage and we have to praise God and thank Senators Shirley Huntley, Frank Padavan and Hiram Monserrate. 

They all risked their chances of being elected in order to take this stand. 

We in the Christian community – and all God-fearing people – owe them our support, our respect and our help. 

The homosexual community has targeted the three of them and put candidates – funded with money from the homosexual community – so their candidate can vote for gay marriage next year. 

Therefore, I am counting on all of you to not only pray for Senators Shirley Huntley, Frank Padavan and Hiram Monserrate, but to also offer them all of the support and help that you can give during their re-election efforts or elections to another position. 

As a State Senator, a Pastor, and a Christian, I need Senators Shirley Huntley, Frank Padavan and Hiram Monserrate back in the New York State legislature for next year when the gay marriage issue will take top priority in New York State. We do not have the luxury of losing these three legislators who have fought so hard for our family, moral and traditional values in the State legislature. 

Respectfully, 

Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz

House Resolution calls for oust of Jennings | The News is NowPublic.com

House Resolution calls for oust of Jennings | The News is NowPublic.com

Gay blog reported to FBI for terrorist threats | The News is NowPublic.com

Gay blog reported to FBI for terrorist threats | The News is NowPublic.com

Maine Group says "no tolerance for dissent" | The News is NowPublic.com

Maine Group says "no tolerance for dissent" | The News is NowPublic.com

Maine Called 'Bellwether' State as conflict swirls around QUESTION ONE, to be voted on Tuesday, November 3. The nation watches Maine, not for what we are, but for what we may be. . . .

The story of Don Mendell illustrates exactly what happens when the gay agenda conflicts with freedom. There is no tolerance for dissent. ~Stand for Marriage, Maine


A group called Stand For Marriage in the state of Maine is claiming that within the gay marriage movement, "there is no tolerance for dissent", and no respect for difference of ideology and opinion. They claim that Maine has become the "bellwether" state: That which shows the way national winds are blowing, and what will be.

Because of the treatment of one of it's members, and the likening of those who feel, as free Americans, that they have the right to vote 'Yes' on Question One (which will give gays rights in all except marriage) and not be depicted as Ku Klux Klan members (see picture above left), the group believes that dissent is no longer tolerated as democracy demands.

STATEMENT FROM STAND FOR MARRIAGE MAINE
REGARDING THREAT TO YES ON 1 TV AD SPOKESMAN DON MENDELL

“I want to alert you to a disturbing development that confirms what we have been saying about the larger threat that redefining marriage poses to every Mainer.

“Don Mendell, one of our spokesmen who appeared in a television ad for Stand for Marriage Maine, has come under attack by our opponents.

“Don is a high school guidance counselor and licensed social worker. His appearance in the television ad prompted a complaint to the Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation – requesting that his license to practice social work in the state of Maine be stripped away – simply because of his personal opinion on marriage.

“It is ironic that those who claim tolerance as their highest value prove themselves to be so intolerant that they would go so far as to threaten a father’s career and put his family’s future at risk. This latest attack highlights the true agenda of those who demand that marriage be redefined.

“No one who opposes Question 1 is in similar danger from those who support marriage between one man and one woman.

“Our opponents want to shut us down. We have no interest in limiting free speech and threatening the right of conscience for those who disagree. So who’s really intolerant?

“This attack proves that a “YES” vote next Tuesday is about much more than protecting marriage. It is also about preserving free speech, religious liberty and right of conscience and about what is taught to children.

“This threat to Don and his family’s livelihood is proof that those who demand marriage be redefined seek to punish and silence those who disagree.

“It is our hope that the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation dismisses this complaint for what it is – nonsense. The Alliance Defense Fund – a legal alliance of attorneys committed to defending the right of people to freely live out their faith – is considering potential action on behalf of Don’s fundamental liberties.

“If the people of Maine vote Yes on Question 1 to protect marriage, we have hope that free speech and religious liberty will be respected. If marriage is not protected, Don will only be the first victim.

Source: beetlebabee.wordpress.com

Gay Marriage : A Smokescreen?

 In light of all the recent debate regarding Proposition 8,  the following article will be enlightening to anyone who ever harbored secret suspicions that same sex marriage might be a smokescreen: 


The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement (Caution, graphic contents)

Posted using ShareThis

Does CA Proposition 8 Revise the Constitution? An Important Question

The Supreme Court of California is reviewing Proposition 8 and has 90 days to decide if it is constitutional.  An argument has been made that banning gay marriage is a major revision of the U.S. Constitution,  and not an amendment.  If this is found to be the case,  Proposition 8 would be necessarily deemed unconstitutional.    Whatever the decision,  the losing side will cry foul.  Which is more important,  the will of the people voting in free elections,  or the decisions of Superior Court judges?  This question was also asked regarding Lawrence v Texas,  which set the precedent for decriminalizing sodomy. 

Strong secular arguments have been made that allowing gay marriage is a major and pernicious revision of the constitution.  Gay marriage is not a neutral issue.  It is not the same,  for example,  as allowing deaf persons to marry,  or as allowing biracial marriage.  Strong arguments have been made on both sides;  yet there are concerns belonging to the contra side which have not been seen within the simplistic framing of the conflict by mainstream media.  Gay marriage is not the cause of divorce of familial breakdown or the blurring of gender roles (obviously)  but its acceptance by mainstream culture would certainly make these worse.  It would give people to understand that we were in a wholly new world,  somewhat the way the sexual revolution of the '60s and '70s did, and with the same alienation and confusion coming in its train.

  In my opinion,  the case for civil unions,  but no gay marriage,  is the most workable.  Philosophically,  the love argument is weak.  Love of two persons for each other demands allowing civil unions,  but does not easily encroach on natural law.

After the seven jugdes had listened for 3 hours to boths sides'  arguments,  a majority of them seemed inclined to uphold Proposition 8,  not believing it to be a major revision of the U.S. Constitution.  Kenneth Starr has raised questions which he says "trancend the marriage issue",  touching on democratic disourse,  popular sovereignty,  and the meaning of the state constitution.

San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza has become a colorful arena of argument and debate.  Hundereds have gathered to await the court's decision.    Some are arguing philosohically and politically,  while others take the religious tack,  complete with bullhorns and talk of Sodom and Gomorrah.  ( The last being a bit silly,  I think,  regarding the age we live in.  )

 Over 18,000 gay couples were allowed to marry before Prop 8 won in the November elections.  This would seem to indicate that there had been legalized gay marriage in the state of California,  albeit for a brief period.  What will be the status of these marriages if Prop 8 is upheld,  is anyone's guess.

I think whether one is for Prop 8 or among its opponents rest on one's stance toward culture,  the marriage perspective being merely secondary.    If one takes the sentimental view of love and individualism  ( what I consider the liberal and feminist view which has its root in '60s ideology) then one is going to oppose Proposition 8.    Conversely, if one takes the conservative view  -  and here I mean conservatism in its best sense  -  then one is unlikely to want gay marriage to take root in the culture,  because one can see that there will be a myriad of unintended consequences,  and a backsliding into what we have been attempting to escape.  Classical liberalism would stop at the civil unions.  Hyper-liberalism will want to encroach of traditional values.  It is not homophobic to be against gay marriage,  by the way,    and no one ought ever attempt to assert this.  This issue has been made far too black and white,  and over simplified to the point of negation.  And yet. . . There is so much passion coming from the opponents of Proposition 8,  I wonder if there will ever be resignation.  Perhaps a middle road will be found.  It remains to be seen.  As Nietzche said,  "Let others grapple with it.".

Op-Ed: NARTH Not Wrong to Counterbalance PFLAG Agenda; Question Scientific Data

Narth and the Gay Rights Agenda   In a recent newsletter put out by NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality)  a Philadelphia physician is taking issue with school curricula which focuses on tolerance and a positive perspective on homosexual relations.  Citing Gender Identity Disorder or GID,  Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons sets forth a rejoinder to the "born that way"  argument of gay advocates,  saying  that there are familial and social reasons why one might drift into same-sex attractions.    He also disputes the idea,  set forth by gay activists,   that gay relationships are similar to heterosexual ones.  He asserts that while the latter have an abuse rate of about 7 %, same-sex relationships have an abuse rate in the range of 33-55%.

  He also challenges scientific data and research methodology of gay advocacy groups,  who have claimed that same sex relationships are as exclusive and long lasting as heterosexual marriage,  and that two fathers or mothers are as good as a husband and wife.  Not the case,  according to Fitzgibbons, and many have felt all along that  data was counterintuitive, and that the cheery agenda of the pro-gay groups might be hiding a sinister underside. 

Certainly throughout the 1990s,  organizations such as PFLAG ( Parents and Family, Friends of Lesbians and Gays) , bolstered by books such as Virtually Normal  by Andrew Sullivan,  made vast strides within the public domain and in public education,  causing acceptance of homosexuality as just something " a bit different"  but quite close to heterosexuality , to soar in public opinion polls.  It signified a major advance for the gay agenda and for gay rights.   Now however,  it seems its shadow side may be fast catching up with it.

Of course,  free and rigorous debate is the mark of a democratic society, and challenges to one's research ought always to be welcomed.  If corrections must be made,  all to the good to get it out in the open.  If not,  then NARTH's challenges will only strengthen gay rights,  if disproved,  and cause the pro-gay argument to become more robust.

  Many people I have discussed gay rights with always felt that the gay marriage agenda contained the seeds of its own destruction,  and that philosophically,  the love argument was weak.  It was as though those who wanted gay relationships decided that it followed that it was also good for children and society to want them.  That in itself was highly suspicious. And charges of "homophobia"  against those who question whether gay marriage might not ecaserbate already high rates of divorce and familial breakdown and confusion  -  actually a very strong secular argument,  totally independent of the Christian evangelicals and other religious nay sayers  -  have lost the power to persuade.   In addition,  many would agree with Dr. Fitzgibbons that while it may be true that gays are bullied and teased at school,  one can strongly condemn this,  and encourage kindness and emapthy, without having to promote the gay agenda.    In any case,  let us welcome the counterview,  and keep a keen eye on the  conflict as it unfolds.    Ours is a new age,  and Barack Obama turned the page for many of us.  Our children's future must not be left to partisan agendas, after all.

Not a Civil Rights Issue

Missing the Point:  Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Rights Issue 
There is a reason why even secular liberals and progressives should pause at the legalization of gay marriage.  Kolasinski is dead on the money, Here

Also noteworthy,  there are some in the gay community who predicted that Obama would "turn dirt"  on the gay agenda once elected into office.  On alt.net,  an interesting prediction was made -  by a member of the gay community  -  that Obama would move federal monies from AIDS research/mecical care to "ex-gay"  therapies.  What interests me,  as always,  is that,  if true,  this fits in with Howe and Strauss 4th Turning predicitons.  Time will tell. . . 

Gay Patriot: Obama and Change

Gay Patriot:  Rhetorically,  Obama Promises Conservative Change :  http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/07/rhetorically-obama-promises-conservative-change/

Gay Rights Leaders Feel Betrayed by Obama, but They Misread the Signs of these Times

Much is being made of Obama's choice of the Reverend Warren to lead the invocation prayer at the Inauguration,  in terms of the feeling of betrayal this has raised within the gay community.  Other concerns have been the fact that gays did not get certain Cabinet positions granted by the President Elect.

Obama knows that however high-profile the gay community may be in the media,  they comprise only a small percent of the population (2-4%,  according to conservative estimates).  Being a populist,  and a true "man of the people", this may be why he is not overly concerned.  Incidentally,  this would not make him crass or uncaring with regard to the gay community;  it certainly would not make him homophobic.  It would simply mean that 90s-style identity politics mean little to him.  I think this is in  fact the case.  The gay community expected a resurgence of the Clinton era,  however unsucsessful it may have been for gays in the long run.  It is the spirit of that era they are lining up for,  like acting students bringing last semester's scripts for their auditon with a radical new acting coach.  This behavior is what Howe and Strauss called post seasonal  as opposed to pre-seasonal in The Fourth Turning:  An American Prophesy.  Post-seasonal behavior lags behind the times:  we show up wearing beach clothes in the nippy fall weather.  Conversely,  pre-sesaonal behavior is on time,  and even early:  We have taken our winter clothes out of storage,  and had them drycleaned,  and are prepared to dress for the coming snow.

Many things are clear to me,  when I eye them through the lens of this American prophesy.  Howe and Strauss,  by the way,  predicted some reversal of the gay rights agenda.  Again,  I have been decidedly "pro-gay"  all of my adult life;  but I am anti-90s identiy politics,  to a marked degree.  In the words of Forrest Gump,  "and that's all I have to say about that.".  (Actually,  I do have a bit more to say.  Camille Paglia's Gay Stalinism  was an intoxicating essay for me in the '90s,  when the PC "Nazis"  were taking over the national campuses and running everything.  So to see history sort of catch up with her;  well,  it is a bit of a thrill.  But this is only in terms of political theory.  )

During election season,  Future Blogger asked,  "Can we outrace the Fourth Turning?".  The answer to that is,  no,  we cannot.  No,  we have not.  It is expedient that we go through this crisis.  I am not sad to see the Third Turning go.

Obama Angers Gay Activists with Rick Warren Invitation: Third Turning Collision with The Fourth Turning

They are angry at Obama. Again. This time, it is the fact that the Reverend Rick Warren has been invited to give the Inauguration invocation. Warren has the Gay, Lesbian, Bi/Transexual community in an uproar, because he supported Proposition 8.

During election season, they were in an uproar because the singer at Obama's Carolina rallies was someone from the "ex-gay" (rehabilitated to heterosexuality) community.


None of this comes as a shock to me; indeed, on my other blog, "Musings on American Philosophy, Culture, Politics", as early as last spring I had said that Obama would be conservative - in a veiled way, but even so - on gay issues. It fits in perfectly with his being the Fourth Turning leader, whose coming in 2008 was predicted by historians and authors, Howe and Strauss. (See this blog archives, "Our Fourth Turning President".) According to the saeculum theory of history, gay rights is an issue which reaches it apex in the Unravelling (third turning), and undergoes a reversal in the Crisis (Fourth Turning). NARTH (North American Research Therapy for Homoxexuality) Association meetings began to gather storm and speed, albeit quietly, in the late '90s, and this was a sign post to the fourth turning. Of course, those with political agendas never seem attuned to ebb and flux, and reading the signs of the times.

Obama and the Gay Agenda: Unprecedented Level of Gay Involvement Helped Campaign

Will Obama be  an advance for the Gay agenda?

According to Blade magazine,  an "unprecedented level of involvement"  by the gay community nationwide helped Barack Obama ascend to become the President elect.  But what is actually  Obama's  stance on gay rights?

On November 23rd, Washington Blade  also said that seven gays have already  been named to Obama's transition team.

After winning the election on November 4,  the the Obama camapign set up Change.gov,  the official "transition" website of the President elect.  Under the Civil Rights section,  commitment to the Gay and Lesbian community is stressed.

During his tenure in the Illinois state senate,  Obama supported the repeal of "don't ask,  don't tell",  regarding gays in the military.

One wonders if this stance on gay rights is truly part and parcel of his plans for Change,  though.  I would venture to say that he is in truth quite conservative in his ideation regarding the strengthening of American community and family,  and that although he has been viewed as quite liberal,  much of his ideology is merely a facade.  Civil Rights activists have allowed the gay community to invade their domain;  neverthe less,  there is a gaping contradiction between what Obama projects,  and those things he proports to defend. Collision with reality happens on many levels, and it would not be surprsing if words took precedent over deeds in the coming years.

In any case,  it remains unclear what an Obama Administration intends to,  or will be able to,  accomplish for homosexual "civil rights".  LeVay and the proponents of the biological "born that way"  argument come up against the NARTH invasion;  Andrew Sullivan and his "Virtually Normal" argument made the case for gay marriage in the 90s,  the heydey of multiculturalism.  He rode in on the wave of a splintered culture,  and a unified one may cause his power to recede.