Liberal Intolerance of Traditional Marriage and Free Speech

From the Va4Marriage:

Harrisonburg Man Fired for Supporting Marriage Amendment

RICHMOND – A Harrisonburg man was fired from his job last week apparently for displaying a sign in his personal vehicle that showed his support for Virginia’s Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.

“It appears that Mr. Padilla’s civil rights have been violated in an egregious act of viewpoint discrimination and violation of his right to free speech,” said Victoria Cobb, spokesperson for va4marriage.org. “It is abundantly clear that those who seek to impose same-sex marriage on society are not at all interested in tolerance of other viewpoints. And they are willing to go so far as to destroy a man’s family and take his livelihood to get their way. I believe that when they hear this story, the people of Virginia will be appalled.”

Luis Padilla, an employee of Cargill, a large employer in the Harrisonburg area, was fired from his job last week for displaying a sign on his personal vehicle. The sign read, “Please, vote for Marriage on Nov. 7.”

Upon receiving an initial warning from his employer about the sign, Mr. Padilla removed the sign from his personal vehicle, replacing it only after driving his vehicle off company property. Mr. Padilla’s boss had led him to believe that this would be an acceptable course of action. When he returned to work the next day, Mr. Padilla was careful to park his vehicle outside the company parking lot so as to minimize the “offense” the sign allegedly caused to co-workers.

Despite these efforts to comply with his superiors’ demands, company officials terminated Mr. Padilla’s employment, citing concerns about harassment as the basis for their actions. Rita Dunaway, senior Legal Advisor for the Valley Family Forum, a local grassroots chapter of The Family Foundation of Virginia, sent a letter to Cargill urging his immediate reinstatement.

Yesterday, Cargill responded with a letter rejecting that plea. In their letter, Cargill stated, “Cargill is not required to allow Mr. Padilla to impose his beliefs on his co-workers.”

“It is appalling that a company like Cargill that claims to value diversity would terminate an employee for merely expressing an opinion about the Marriage Amendment,” said Mrs. Dunaway. “Companies that truly value diversity encourage, rather than punish, the benign, respectful type of private expression for which Mr. Padilla was fired. There is simply no way that this sign could have been considered harassment.”

“The action taken by Cargill against Mr. Padilla, the father of two young children, is a tragic example of political correctness run amuck,” according to Valley Family Forum Director Dean Welty. “This action exposes the hypocrisy of people who claim to stand for ‘tolerance’ but who instead do all they can to silence all opposing views. In this case, those who accuse Mr. Padilla of ‘harassment’ have themselves become the ‘harassers’.”

“va4marriage.org and The Family Foundation are currently talking with attorneys to determine what legal options are available to Mr. Padilla,” added Cobb. “We hope this action won’t be necessary and that Cargill will do the right thing by reinstating Mr. Padilla immediately and taking aggressive steps to ensure that this kind of employee harassment and intimidation does not occur again.””

So much for free speech and tolerance from Liberals. Another reason to vote for Marriage in Virginia. Send a message to those who would silence any dissent from Political Correctness.

Update: The Daily News Record has published a story this morning confirming the broad outlines of the Va4Marriage account. But there’s more detail about Cargill’s reasoning. Said a Cargill spokesman: “When ordered to do something relatively simple — remove from his truck two signs that other employees could have reasonably construed as a show of hostility and intolerance toward homosexuals — Mr. Padilla decided to ignore the warning and disobey the order. By refusing to obey the order, he demonstrated that he could not be trusted to enforce and promote our employment policies because his personal beliefs mattered more to him.”

— Jim Bacon

By the way, see what kind of Web page you land on when you type “VA4Marriage.com” into the address line of your browser. It’s not the same as when you type “VA4Marriage.org.” Cute.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

46 responses to “Liberal Intolerance of Traditional Marriage and Free Speech”

  1. Please equate Cargill, the multi-million (billion?) dollar corporation to your definition of “Liberal”.

    How is a company being stupid proof that “Liberals” don’t allow free speech and tolerance?

    You’re smarter than this, James. Lose the rhetoric, find the facts.

  2. And just as an aside, do you really think “va4marriage” is a reliable source on which to base such a sweeping comment?

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    This is by far the most laughable thing I’ve ever seen on this blog. Please!

  4. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Patience, patience. You will see if this is correctly reported by Va4Marriage or not.

    The management or the local managers weren’t being Conservative, Republican, or Tolerant. The side of the Culture War which brands Christian free speech ‘intolerant’ and ‘bigoted’ is the ‘Liberal’ side.

    I look forward to seeing how this plays out to see how laughable it is or not.

  5. James,

    Your logic:

    the people in charge of the company were not being “Conservative, Republican, or ‘Tolerant’”, “Liberals are not “Conservative”, “Republican”, or “Tolerant”. Therefore, the people in charge at Cargill were “Liberals”.

    Is IDENTICAL TO:

    Penguins are black and white. Old TV’s are black and white. Therefore penguins are old tvs.

    Sorry, James. This one is just a sad, sad, seemingly desperate stab to convince people using a situation that didn’t exist.

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    I doubt very much that the man involved and his family are laughing.

    I hope anonymous has the guts to apologize tomorrow when this story is in the news.

  7. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Jamie, I’m not going to argue Logic 101. If I paint with too wide a brush, as may be the case, then it’s my fault alone.

    When I read, assuming its true, that a manager says someone “can’t impose their beliefs on fellow workers” because they have a SIGN or BUMPER STICKER on their car, I am at a loss to attribute that to anyone else but a Liberal. No one else is that stupid to think a bumper sticker IMPOSES beliefs. No one else is that ready to be a totalitarian. No one else is that willing to silence free speech.

    I’m not trying to convince anyone of what happened in Harrisonburg. The great thing is that the truth will out. We will all find out what happened – really.

    You know some person in Massachusetts lost their appointment to a public position because they signed a petition to get marriage on the ballot. There are plenty of other examples of the intolerance of Tolerance when it comes to homosexuals.

  8. Conaway B. Haskins III Avatar
    Conaway B. Haskins III

    So, if Cargill had fired an employee for displaying a Vote NO bumper sticker, would you extol their “conservative” virtues? They had to be liberal because only liberals act that way?

    Companies have the right to regulate speech on their property. It’s called free markets, or is your obsession with this fake, trumped-up, ridiculous so-called “Culture War” so high that you’ve disregarded that notion?

    You’re slipping, man.

  9. James,

    You decline to debate your logic because it is totally lacking in the “argument” you set forth.

    I’m not going to address your comment about “the only people stupid enough to believe a bumper sticker can impose a belief is a “Liberal”. That is wholly beneath me, and everyone else trying to debate this very important point in our Commonwealth’s history.

    This is a sad attempt, smacking of desperation, to stir up people who agree with what is indeed a sad, misguided point of view.

    I thought better of you, James.

    If this is your true M.O., then Mr. Bacon should re-visit allowing you to contribute to what is normally an engaging and debate-provoking website and blog.

    And if the gentleman truly was fired for something as ridiculous as a bumper sticker on their car (and that is as far as it went) then that gentleman should SEEK OUT THE ACLU to redress his very obvious grievance (sp?)

  10. Agitator Avatar

    If I read correctly, Padilla was fired AFTER complying with the company’s directive. This seems rather hamhanded and they deserve whatever mr padilla and his supporters can throw back in thier face.

  11. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Conaway: Get the facts please, then give advice. The report says the fellow complied with not having the sign on his car on company property.

    I wouldn’t support someone firing anyone for having a ‘No’ sticker on their car. Who could be so narrow minded that they can’t stand a different opinion on a car? Oh, I know who.

    Jamie, what is the sad misguided point of view in “stir up people who agree with what is indeed a sad, misguided point of view?”

    Nice try to silence the messenger since you can’t defeat the message in the marketplace of ideas.

    Funny how quickly some folks are willing to pounce on the story being made public with little intellectual curiousity as to what actually happened. Hmm.

  12. Am I to believe that the people posting here think it’s fine that a company fires a father of two young children because he puts a sign INSIDE his own car that he parks OUTSIDE the gates to their property?

    Or that their own employers would be perfectly OK to fire them if, say, they supported the marriage amendment and they didn’t like opponents of the amendment having vote-no signs in their yards?

    I guess I’m just so used to be confronted with blatant attacks on my positions and my morality that I can’t imagine how other people can react so negatively to a simple sign.

    See, christians are used to having our beliefs, our culture, our heritage, or very way of life ridiculed, regulated, attacked, marginalized, and banished every single day.

    It’s just that sometimes the perpetrators are just so blatant that it’s hard to believe.

  13. Wow Charles.

    It’s just amazing how “Christians” are ridiculed here in America.

    Unless you come from a nation where Christianity is a persecuted, please get off of that particular horse.

    James.

    Your “message” seems to be that the management at Cargill in Harrisonburg are “Liberal” hate-mongers who wanted this guy fired. And that “Liberals” are stupid to the point that they can’t bear to see the “truth” plastered to the bumper of someone else’s car. If that’s your message, then that’s the sad, misguided view that I’m talking about. That and that your conclusions are laughable.

    In reality, it’s that I’ve never seen a single human being fired for having anything on their car, without there being some pretty major (in this case, unreported) circumstances to go with it. Hmmm…

  14. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Jamie: Sorry you didn’t get the memo on acts of anti-Christian bigotry in America. They abound and they come from the Left (and Islamists overseas). Read more.

    When you write “your “message” seems” then you are engaging in the conjecture which is almost always wrong. Just take a deep breath before fussing and see how true the report is. Then if the facts stand, you can condemn the manager for being a bigot and stupid.

  15. James,

    No. I was pretty spot on with what you had to say in your editorial and subsequent comments. It was analysis, not conjecture.

    If the story hasn’t been confirmed then there are no facts to stand anywhere. You reported second-hand speculation. Let’s see the facts come out, and then see IF they stand.

    Have you ever read “The Whiner Of The Week”? It’s on espn.com, and it’s about some overpaid athlete who is whining and moaning when something trivial doesn’t go their way.

    I think you just won for this coming Monday.

    Articles in Harper’s Bazaar, the movie V for Vendetta, and conferences at CUNY don’t count as being persecuted like you and your cohort inferred. It’s not bigoted to disagree with someone’s point of view. Your opinion, unlike God’s, is not infallable.

    Again, you have steered a debate (in this case a useless one) into a quagmire of religous nonsense.

  16. Like much of what comes from the “Family Foundation,” this sounds quite shrill and likely to be missing some critical information.

    I look forward to hearing about what really happened – it’s highly unlikely to be what is described here. James, I know plenty of gay people who would lose their jobs if they outed themselves by simple things like keeping a picture of their partner on their desk. Do you care?

  17. Anonymous Avatar

    Firing someone for sexual identity or a political sign isn’t ethical; what if the gentleman had placed a swastika on his truck? Different dynamic, same set of ethics.

    I worked with a small group today (teaching language). Brought out the marriage amendment for discussion purposes. We read the text carefully and the legislative history showing that Virginia had already voted against gay marriage and had already addressed definition. The students focused on the second paragraph of the statement, and as an exercise argued both sides.

    At the end of the day, one said, this is more about attacking single people than it is about marriage. And the text does read that way. The other question asked is “where are they stopping?”

    This amendment is scary in how far it might go. If the unintended consequences do hurt single parents, one of the largest segments of the population, there will be a slow tide of growing unrest and ultimately there may be a political reaction. But no one is talking about what seems obvious….

  18. lontlont Avatar

    It’s Jim Bacon’s bacon’s rebellion: the blog with in-depth naunced political discussion.

    Also, JAB’s paranoia about gay people and their faux families that they procure and how they are destroying america!

    One of these things is not like the other…

  19. Jim Bacon Avatar

    For those interested in the evolving sociology of Virginia, this case is fraught with fascinating implications. First, please note that the aggrieved in this case, Mr. Padilla, is Hispanic — undoubtedly a relative newcomer to the Shenandoah Valley. Hispanics tend to vote the Democratic ticket (though not as lopsidedly as African-Americans). But if we can extrapolate from this case, Hispanics may tend to favor the cultural conservatives in the culture wars. It will be interesting to see how this issue resonates with other Hispanics.

    The second observation: Cargill is an out-of-state company, headquartered in Minnesota, and its management may have very different views about gay rights than the culturally conservative residents of the Shenandoah Valley. If this were a different issue, not one so near and dear to the hearts of liberals, one would expect to hear critics excoriate the company for imposing its cultural views upon the workforce. It will be interesting to see if cultural conservatives pick up that theme.

    As an economic conservative, I believe that Cargill has the right to fire Mr. Padilla. Of course, it had better be prepared to deal with the consequences if the issue polarizes the workforce.

  20. Jim Bacon Avatar

    P.S. From the facts of the case revealed so far, I find Cargill’s characterization of Padilla’s actions as “insubordination” to be a bit of a stretch. According to the DNR account, he did try to find a middle ground between expressing his opinion on his car and respecting his employer’s property rights. In the end, the company was within its rights to fire Padilla, but the action seems disproportionate to the offense. I would not be surprised if Padilla becomes a martyr that energizes the cultural right on this issue.

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    “the company was within its rights to fire Padilla, but the action seems disproportionate to the offense”

    Exactly right, Jim. Where employment is concerned Virginia is an “at will” state. As long as a company hasn’t violated specific civil rights law by firing an employee because of race, sex, etc, it can fire an employee for any reason whatsoever or no reason at all. Sexual orientation is not covered under these laws and there are companies operating in Virginia that refuse to hire gays.

    The story in the “Roanoke Times” today suggests that Mr. Padilla was asked to remove the sign when some employees complained. IMO no one has the “right” not to be offended by other peoples’ bumper strips. I happen to have a “Vote No on 1” bumper strip on my car.

    I am sorry that Mr. Padilla was fired and I hope that Cargill reconsiders. I think that Cargill showed bad judgement; but, alas, they could have fired him and given no reason and been within the law.

    Deena Flinchum

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    Just by the by, if you’re so upset about va4marriage.com linking to pornographic sites, then you should have bought it when it was up for sale. It’s not a liberal organization that has that site up; it’s a domain registar who’s holding it until it is purchased by someone. Why the porn links? Cause they make money off these if even one person clicks on them.

    If you’re going to show outrage at something like this, at least know what you’re talking about first, smartass.

  23. republitarian Avatar
    republitarian

    Since I live here…..I suggest we wait for more FACTS before we make absolute judgements about what went on here….

  24. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    Well, it’s utterly clear to me that normal people are therefore entitled to terminate from employment those who display “=” signs, rainbow paraphernalia, and anti-marriage amendment bumper stickers on their vehicles, as well as homos who make a public issue of their private sexual behavior.

    Or did I miss something here?

  25. It’s utterly clear to all of us, James, as I’ve already pointed out. Try to keep up.

    The other James didn’t bother to answer my question regarding whether he cares, and I don’t expect you will, either.

  26. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    David: “I know plenty of gay people who would lose their jobs if they outed themselves by simple things like keeping a picture of their partner on their desk. Do you care?” I don’t believe this, unless the homosexuals are around children in their job. I care that homosexuals shouldn’t be fired for being homosexual, except for maintaining the military exclusion as unfit for military service.

    Let’s see how the facts come out. Pun not intended. As Jim Bacon points out it is relevant to what goes on across our culture in our Commonwealth.

  27. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Virginia is an employment at will state. Cargill could have fired him for no reason and avided all the trouble.

    I don’t see any point in adding the liberal vs conservative element to the discussion, the ideas in play are elusive enough.

  28. “By refusing to obey the order, he demonstrated that he could not be trusted to enforce and promote our employment policies because his personal beliefs mattered more to him.”

    Here’s the problem: His specific position was in human resources. That’s a little different from just a random job with the company. It’s literally his job to represent whatever diversity and non-discrimination policies are in force at Cargill, and in their judgement he was openly advertising an unwillingness to uphold those policies.

    It’s not really just a matter of free speech when it’s your job description. Cargill wants someone in that position who doesn’t create the appearance that they will be discriminatory, and that seems reasonable from a business perspective.

    I’m certainly not comfortable with the idea that people have the right to not be offended – nobody has that right. But it does seem that this situation is a bit more complicated than we were led to believe.

  29. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Ray, the Liberal element is to be fired over something so innocuous as
    “Vote for Marriage”. Red lights and sirens should be going off in your head that someone would react so wildly. Something is really wrong. Again, the Liberal aspect is the viewpoint side that was ‘offended’ and fired the fellow.

    Second, it is true that you can be fired for any reason. But, it should raise some concern about free speech in Virginia if employers are so intolerant of its exercise during an election on an election issue. If one can not distinguish between “Vote for Marriage” and some workplace disruptive threat to hurt people, then there truly is a death of commonsense and moral judgement.

    David: “It’s literally his job to represent whatever diversity and non-discrimination policies are in force at Cargill, and in their judgement he was openly advertising an unwillingness to uphold those policies.” Being for traditional marriage doesn’t advertise an unwillingness to uphold policies of non-discrimination. Does Cargill have a policy stating that they support homosexual marriage and demand that their employees toe the line too?

  30. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Anonymous 8:21. Touchy, touchy! You said, “It’s not a liberal organization that has that site up; it’s a domain registar who’s holding it until it is purchased by someone.”

    I did NOT suggest or imply that a “liberal organization” was responsible for linking “va4marriage.com” to porn sites. I simply pointed out the links, which I found shocking. I have no idea who is responsible. I was sensitized to the problem because the day before I had deleted a now-defunct blog on my blogroll whose URL also linked to a porn site. So there’s really no need to call me “smartass.”

    David, I’m sorry I didn’t answer your question that you posed in an earlier post. The fact is, I have very conflicted sentiments regarding the same-sex marriage issue. I have a number of gay friends and acquaintances, and I am very concerned about any legislation/amendment that might abridge their rights to a civil union. On the other hand, I have strong reservations about gay marriage. I happen to believe there IS a slippery slope. Once you declare that marriage is not limited to one man and one woman, what logic is there to say that it’s limited to one person (of any sex) and another person (of any sex). In other words, what justification is there — other than drawing a line just as arbitrary as the line being drawn now — for prohibiting polygamy? I’m dead serious about the polygamy thing. The United States has an increasing number of immigrants from nations where polygamy is practiced. If gay marriage is permitted, polygamists WILL insist upon having their form of marriage legitimized as well. And, then, who knows what will follow.

    Bottom line: I see arguments on both sides of the issue. In the end, I will probably vote against the amendment because I’m not convinced that it adds much to existing law.

  31. NoVA Scout Avatar
    NoVA Scout

    No one should be penalized by an employer for expressing a political opinion. Full stop. But the big problem here is ambiguity. When I read that Mr. Padilla had a bumper sticker in his POV that said “Vote for Marriage,” I quite naturally assumed that this was a statement of opposition to this ridiculous Marshall-Newman Amendment. Clearly Mr. Padilla was trying to keep goverment’s filthy hands off of a religious sacrament and was trying to protect the Virginia constitution from interference by radical liberals who would seek to deface that sacred document with secular interference in religious/moral issues. Cargill must be hard over in the camp of the liberal constitutional tinkerers supporting this amendment. I applaud Mr. Padilla’s opposition to this amendment. He is a true conservative. Liberals with no respect for constitutional principles are behind this amendment. This amendment is part of a culture war intended to turn all Virginians’ minds to mush on the difference between legislation and constitutional principles. Conservatives will vote no in record numbers on this assault on their constitution and their liberties. (Sorry – I must have been dreaming. The above comment would only apply where people really understood what was going on – Harvey Wilkerson and I seem to be the only ones who think that this amendment is essentially a liberal assault on the Constitution. Just because there are only two of us – maybe three if we add Bacon to our number – doesn’t mean we’re wrong).

  32. Anonymous Avatar

    “I’m dead serious about the polygamy thing.”

    Jim, there is absolutely nothing to stop “an increasing number of immigrants from nations where polygamy is practiced” from raising this issue even if gay marriage never materializes. All they have to do is raise the ethnic discrimination issue.

    We are already seeing this sort of lawsuit in the over-crowded housing issue in Manassas and in various communities across the nation that are trying to crack down on illegal immigration. No one in Manassas was singling out Hispanic families while allowing non-Hispanic families to deliberately violate the law. Still, since Hispanics were overwhelmingly found to be in violation, it became an ethnic discrimination issue and last I heard, the situation was under investigation.

    All it would take would be for the Hmong or Somalia Bantu communities to make an ethnic discrimination issue out of polygamy. And IMO, it’s all a matter of time before that happens. As it happens now, they simply form their families however they choose. Do you really think that a “secondary” wife won’t eventually sue for survivor benefits?

    Deena Flinchum

  33. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    WOW! I guess we couldn’t have a law that sez Polygamy is illegal regardless of whether you wear dresses, pants or “other”?

    DANG – I knew we couldn’t trust those guys in Utah to behave themselves.

  34. Anonymous Avatar

    While I don’t see a just reason for firing this guy, I think it’s incredibly ironic that JAB is the one getting all outraged, when he would be and has been perfectly happy with firing gay people and is dead set against extending anti-discrimination laws to them (special rights, remember!).

    I do think the position of someone in human resources makes a difference. More and more people are of the mind that the “marriage” amendment isn’t really so much about gay marriage as it is trying to prevent any sort of civil union or partner right altogether, meaning that it is far more extreme than its sheeps clothing. Companies often position themselves on particular lines of political issues, and if they felt like having someone on the opposite side hurt their image in some way, then it would make sense to fire them.

    Jim: if you know actual gay people, tell me: do think their families are fake, as JAB does, “procured” as JAB claims, simply to help undermine real families?

    Of course, all of this is simply assuming that we have the full story on this incident. So far, I’ve only seen accounts in generally unreliable media outlets like the agape press, which regularly leave out key details in order to inflate a seeming outrage.

  35. Anonymous Avatar

    While we’re at it: here’s a fun roundup of the misadventures of those “gay people who have fuax families that they procure” – JAB

    * There was the friend I wrote about recently who was turned away from from the emergency room, where his partner had been taken after suddenly collapsing at work, and told he could not be given any information because he was not next of kin. He had to leave the hospital and retrieve their legal documents before he could gain admittance to see his partner when a married spouse would have been waved through without question.

    * My friend was luckier than Bill Flanigan. When his partner Robert Daniel was hospitalized in Baltimore, the couple had their legal documents with them, including durable power of attorney and documentation that they were registered as domestic partners in California. But those documents were ignored by hospital staff and Flanigan was kept from seeing his partner until Daniel’s mother and sister arrived and by then Daniel was unconscious, with his eyes taped shut and hooked to a breathing tube; something Daniel had not wanted.

    * Even having a will didn’t help Sam Beaumont when his partner of 23 years, Earl, died. Oklahoma requires a will to have two witnesses, but Earl didn’t know that and his will leaving everything to Sam had only one. So Earls cousins, who disapproved of his relationship and most of whom never spoke to the couple or even came to Earl’s funeral, successfully sued to take away the home and ranch Sam an Earl had shared for 23 years. A married spouse, even in the event of a will lacking enough witnesses, would’ve had the right to automatically inherit at least some of the estate.

    * Laurel Hester gave 23 years of service as a investigator for the county prosecutor’s office, only to be denied justice when she requested that the county government to provide domestic partnership benefits as permitted (but not required) by New Jersey state law. Hester was dying of cancer and wished to leave her pension to her partner, Stacee Andree, so that Andree could keep their home after Hester’s death. Her request was denied. It wasn’t until the story attracted media attention, cause people to rally in support of Hester, and eventually drew threats to boycott the tourism-dependent county that the county government finally granted Hester’s request shortly before she died.

    * Having a domestic partnership didn’t spare Crispin Hollings any trouble when his partner Eric Rofes died recently. While making funeral arrangements, Crispin had to mount a legal challenge against a funeral home director who refused to recognize their relationship and refused to let Hollings proceed with the funeral arrangements. The funeral home director eventually relented, but no heterosexual spouse would’ve had to face that challenge in the midst of mourning and carrying out a spouse’s last wishes.

    * Having a civil union won’t help Robert Scanlon and Jay Baker, even after 30 years together. With Robert facing inevitable decline and death from ALS, the couple will likely have to liquidate all of their belongings to pay for the necessary care. A married spouse, as mentioned before, would at least be able to keep the house.

    http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2006/10/john-mccain-swings-both-ways.html

  36. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Anonymous 10:01, I’ve known two gay families with children. In one case, one of the gay men had the children when he was married (to a woman) before he realized he was gay. I would not say that he “procured” them. Another instance involved a man and woman who, from how I reconstruct the situation, were both gay but married and had a child. Outwardly, they seemed like a normal hetero couple, even to close friends. I have no idea what was going going on inside the bedroom. Anyway, the couple eventually broke up and, from what I understand, both came out of the closet. But they have a child. My sense is that the child was the result of sexual confusion and a desire to lead “normal” (by conservative Richmond standards) lives. Again, in this case, the child was not “procured.”

    I also know of an instance of a woman who has had three children –with no discernible father or boyfriend in the picture. Probably sperm donors. I don’t know the woman’s sexual orientation; she simply does not talk about it. In that instance, I suppose one could say, the children were procured, although she went through full pregnancies and might well be offended by such a characterization. (In this case, does it really matter whether the woman is gay or not? She doesn’t have a partner, either male or female.)

    It’s a crazy world. Roles are changing. Medical science makes possible things that no one imagined 50 years ago would be possible.

    As for the instances you cite regarding the recognition of legal rights of gay people, I am totally sympathetic to their plight. I’m not entirely convinced that Virginia’s protection-of-marriage amendment would nullify such arrangements, but I definitely would be opposed to the amendment if I could be persuaded that it did.

  37. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry, the laws involving zoning, public health and safety, creating a nuisance, etc that are being challenged are written broadly to cover everybody regardless of race, ethnic background, sex, etc just as laws prohibiting polygamy are. They are being challenged because the IMPACT of those laws falls more heavily on a protected group.

    I wouldn’t worry about “those guys in Utah” – Mormons are not a protected group. Neither are gays in spite of what a couple of newspaper articles on the Cargill- Padilla story say. If they were, they couldn’t be banned from the military. However many, and probably most, of the immigrants – legal and illegal – entering the US now ARE members of protected groups. Family reunification – the single largest source of LEGAL immigration in the US – will insure that they remain so.

    That’s right: The single biggest reason for being admitted to the US legally doesn’t involve being a brilliant scientist or even a hard-working AgWorker. It involves being kin to somebody already here.

    Deena Flinchum

  38. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    hmmm.. I know I’m being dense – but if polygamy is the fear… why not put THAT clause in the Constitutional Amendment?

    I’m with Jim and others on this. I think it is plain and simple abuse of people who are different – ironically from folks who profess to “care” about others.

    The government and the rest of us should leave others alone. We’ve got enough problems with others doing violence to each other and women and kids.

    Live and let live… I’m sure God would sign off on that concept.

  39. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Anon 2:23: Thanks for trying to speak for me, but I can speak for myself. I’m far more accurate.

    Other Anon: There’s a longer litany of heterosexual couples’ stories, I’m sure, who shacked up and who had the same legal problems. A homosexual can visit another in the hospital, transfer property etc. like a heterosexual not married. No individual rights are denied.

    Jim Bacon: No homosexual ‘couple’ has children of their own procreation. Biology 101. Period.

    Larry: The God Baal or Asheroth will sign off on anybody marrying anyone – and child sacrifice.

    Allah signs off on one man, four women.

    The fundamentalist Mormon God signs off on one man, forty women.

    The Judeo-Christian God of the Holy Bible signs off on one man and one woman marriage.

    It’s not abuse to preserve traditional marriage. It sure isn’t violence either. It’s best for the children to have a mother and a father. It’s best for the secular state too.

    Live and let live indeed. Only modern Liberals confuse homosexual sex with marriage. It’s never happened – EVER – in 5000 years of human civilization (including declining civilizations that promoted homosexuality).

  40. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Let’s see .. at some point GOD shows up and wants to know what the hey is going on – and I’m betting those who want this amendment will not be on his good list.

    Apparently .. the marriage issue is so important and so vital, that there is no time for the church to weigh in on “minor” issues – like the torture…of humans…

    Onward – Christian Soldiers… !!!

  41. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Larry: You must be assuming that the Christian Soldiers – if that is who you refer to as the church – can only do one thing at a time. The Christians I know aren’t so limited in time or abilities.

  42. Anonymous Avatar

    Jim

    “I would not say that he “procured” them.”

    Are you aware, then, that this is how JAB describes the children and families of gay people? They have “faux families which they procure” according to him. For JAB, gay couples are, as he says, no more than just two people that happen to have shacked up.

    It’s people like him that wrote and are pushing for this amendment and who upon its passage will then immediately turn around and try to use it against any form of legal partnership arrangement gay couples can cobble together, let alone any civil union proposed, no matter how minimal. This has been done in nearly every state where these amendments with their carefully vague language has been passed, with varying success (of course when they lose, it’s the ACTIVIST COURTS! that are to blame and whom they promise will be replaced so the right verdict can come about, not any overreach on the part of the law).

    JAB: “A homosexual can visit another in the hospital, transfer property etc. like a heterosexual not married.”

    No JAB, as those stories and countless others demonstrate, they often cannot, even after going to great lengths to reproduce the arrangements of marriage that would allow them to… and of course that is prior to your amendment, which will almost immediately after passing will be used to challenge even these table scraps in court.

    The bottom line for you JAB is that you lack empathy. You are incapable of understanding that a gay couple of 23 years who have remained committed to each other, who have raised kids into adulthodd, could be anything more than two people “shacking up.” For you, being gay is about nothing more than sex.

    The demonstrated benefits you discuss are about two stable parents in a stable relationship: _regardless_ of their gender (no one is being caught by that bait and switch anymore: the research contrasts SINGLE parents with married couples, not straight vs gay parents). The fact is, gay families already exist, no matter how nastily you characterize them. The very research you cite supports that what is best for these children is to have the full weight of state rights and responsibilities on both parents and their union, regardless of what you call it, not for them to exist in some bizarre limbo where their parents are legally only “shacking up.” You don’t and so far never have had any answer or solution to this issue, because as far as you are concerned, gay people should simply vanish from the planet as soon as possible so that you needn’t have to think about them any longer.

  43. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Anon again or an old Anon: A homosexual couple didn’t birth the children they raised. They got them somewhere.

    Children need a mother and a father. A mother and a father is the best marriage to provide for raising children.

  44. Anonymous Avatar

    So this is what political correctness has come to in America. A person can be fired for simply stating “Please vote for marriage on Nov. 7.”!? My God. I feel more and more as though I live in a parallel universe. We are no longer dealing with the sane when it comes to morality. The left argues for tolerance. Sucking the brains out of living babies is tolerance. Arguing for what all of nature screams is unnatural is tolerance. Not commenting about someone whose piercings make them look like something out of a carnvial freak show is tolerance. And now, firing a man who supports what has been the bedrock of every civilized nation for 6000 years is tolerance.

    Reprobates.

  45. Anonymous Avatar

    Why can’t gay people be allowed to suffer the same misery as “straight people” in the institution of marriage, when two out of every three marriages end in divorce?

  46. i can’t believe some of the comments on here. fact of the matter is this…it was wrong to fire the guy for a bumper sticker. flat out wrong. the guy supports defining marriage between a man and a woman…so what? he even did what he thought was complying with his employer’s wishes. stop trying to supress free speech that doesnt agree with ur own viewpoint. too much pride is keeping some of u people to see the other side of the argument. let’s put aside all this bullshit conservative vs. liberal jibberish, and try to see that a man lost his source of income for a stupid, stupid reason. and i cant stress “stupid” enough. so sad…i worry about the future of this country…

Leave a Reply