Michael Hurd’s observation on hypocrisy of Apple and other businesses

“On Sunday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that his company would “never tolerate discrimination.” He then compared Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act to Jim Crow; he equated a law guaranteeing the rights of individuals to take part in only the transactions they want to a law forcing individuals to take part in only those transactions the government deems worthy. But Cook is happy to do business with and in Saudi Arabia, as Erick Erickson points out, as well as Uganda, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. All of those countries are quite unfriendly to homosexuals.

Other companies looking to boycott Indiana include Smallbox, Salesforce, and Angie’s List; particularly, they want to disassociate from businesses headquartered in Indiana. Yet all of these companies work with businesses with outlets in places like Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by death.”

Hypocrisy on the left should hardly be news; but it seems each new generation forgets the concentration camps, the reeducation ordeals, the starvation of kulaks, the show trials, the banishments to Siberia—all in the name of socialist/leftist ideologies.

http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/31/time-tim-cook-apple-stand-homosexual-rights-china/

http://www.examiner.com/article/apple-boycotts-indiana-opens-stores-saudi-arabia

http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/08/15/obamas-gay-muslim-hypocrisy/

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/politics/indiana-religious-freedom-and-the-utter-hypocrisy-of-the-left

Indiana isn’t targeting gays. Liberals are targeting religion.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-intolerance-1427760183

The Indiana law is a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that passed 97-3 in the Senate and that Bill Clinton signed in 1993. Both the federal and Indiana laws require courts to administer a balancing test when reviewing cases that implicate the free exercise of religion. . .

The federal RFRA followed the Supreme Court’s Employment Division v. Smith ruling in 1990 that abandoned its 30-year precedent of reviewing religious liberty cases under strict scrutiny. Congress responded with RFRA, which merely reasserted longstanding First Amendment protections.

In 1997 the Supreme Court limited RFRA’s scope to federal actions. So 19 states including such cultural backwaters as Connecticut, Rhode Island and Illinois followed with copy-cat legislation, and Indiana is the 20th. Courts in 11 states have extended equally vigorous protections.

As I noted earlier. . . this is political, it’s about the 2016 election and having a “gotcha” question for Republicans, because the Democrats have NOTHING except sex.

Who is the bigot?

If you have the progressive view of marriage (it is an emotional attachment approved and defined by many in the 21st century), and I have the traditional view (it is approved by God and all of history and cultures), are you then a bigot if you think the 21st century marriage should be limited to two adults, but not three or four, or one adult and a minor, or a brother and sister, or three sisters, or five cousins, or a grandfather and granddaughter? If it is an emotional attachment and the people are committed and need the tax benefits, who are you to judge, if I can’t judge?  If my belief in traditional marriage doesn’t matter, why does yours?  Is it unfair for those with a different view to call you be a bigot because you deny them their loving relationship with societal approval?

You can Google “polyamory” and find many websites of people looking for your participation and approval.  They are using the same argument about civil and government rights and societal approval you are.  Many African and Muslim cultures approve and encourage child brides, as well as the genital mutilation of young girls as the threshold for marriage. (The men think they’ll be less likely to be infected by disease if they marry a young virgin.

Will rich gay men marry and share their assets in a divorce?

I don't believe a lot of gay men are going to rush out to marry their lovers--they are the wealthiest demographic in the US and also big in the art, music, interior design, literature, film and political fields. How many have added the boyfriend to the will or mansion deed?  Some have, and nothing has prohibited that.  But just look around at the trophy wives or the girl friends (a certain golfer comes to mind) of men.  Do you really think gay men want the expense of lawyers and alimony?  Why hand over their assets to someone who is the equivalent of a rich man's mistress?

What gay marriage has done in states that have recognized it (like Massachusetts) is create over night a new lower class--kind, loving, respectable people can now be bullied and ridiculed as bigots and homophobes with a simple redefinition of a word. In those states, churches are losing freedom of speech and religion; parents are losing control of their right to transmit their values to their children. Adoption will not be about what is best for children, but about pleasing adults.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/real_bullies_the_homosexuality_is_normal_movement.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/julyweb-only/gay-marriage-religious-freedom.html

Gay marriage fantasies—I don’t think it is the benefits

It's interesting that more young people, liberal and conservative, Christian and non-, have become more favorable about gay marriage--but not so much for traditional marriage, the one promoted in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and all civilizations from the beginning.  They’ve fallen for that “rights” argument—the carrot of government benefits.  Ha!  Marriage in the last 20 years for young adults is becoming more and more optional, with the children walking down the aisle with mom and dad, if they marry at all.  All the government studies in the world that show their own children are less likely to thrive haven’t budged their opinion that shacking up is more fun and economical.

I know a lot of older couples (male and female) living together, who I assume know about all those wonderful government perks gay marriage proponents  seem to seek.  Yes.  She ran into her 1950s boyfriend at the reunion, but they don't want to give up her alimony, so they have a commitment ceremony spoken by a preacher who got her license on the internet and see a good lawyer to protect their assets which will go to the children.  Or her husband died 30 years ago, she's got a good pension, they keep their homes separate, but are always together, on trips, outings and social events. Or they don't marry because of consanguinity or they were formerly in-laws. And of course, there's always his kids can't stand her kids, so for peace and inheritances, they avoid the marriage thing. Or, the worst.  He divorced her after her stroke which left her brain injured so she could get Medicaid and he comes to visit her in the nursing home with his girlfriend with home he shares his wife’s home.

Social security?  Oh really?  Ask any widow in her 50s who hasn't worked in 25 years. Or ask someone with a teacher's pension like me. There is nothing for us.  Also, they might want to talk to a woman, not divorced, whose husband left her for a younger more buff version of herself, and she found out the hard way there is no legal requirement for support while married and he doesn’t care if the house goes into foreclosure or the utilities aren’t paid.

VAWA, Violence Against Women Act, Again

The Violence Against Women Act (1994), which probably did nothing to protect women from domestic violence in its former wording, has been expanded in 2013 to include the GLBT demographic, which according to testimony has a much higher rate of domestic violence than the straight community. Violence in the lesbian and bi-sexual groups was stated as higher than for heterosexual women and men, or gay men.

The CDC report found that 29.4 percent of lesbians and 49.3 percent of bisexual women reported experiencing some form of severe physical violence in their lifetimes, compared with 23.6 percent of heterosexual women.

I glanced through several web sites to see about the funding (aka “follow the money”) and found 18 grants in Wikipedia, and 21 on the DoJ page, connected to the current VAWA.  That’s full employment for a number of activists in a variety of fields—social workers, grant writers, lawyers, workshop planners, college professors, etc.  This list is from Wikipedia, so may not be complete.  I’ll keep looking.  Like Head Start which did nothing in over 40 years for children (who grew up to become adults), it is a jobs program.

• STOP Grants (State Formula Grants)
• Transitional Housing Grants
• Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Protection Orders
• Court Training and Improvement Grants
• Research on Violence Against Indian Women
• National Tribal Sex Offender Registry
• Stalker Reduction Database
• Federal Victim Assistants
• Sexual Assault Services Program
• Services for Rural Victims
• Civil Legal Assistance for Victims
• Elder Abuse Grant Program
• Protections and Services for Disabled Victims
• Combating Abuse in Public Housing
• National Resource Center on Workplace Responses
• Violence on College Campuses Grants
• Safe Havens Project
• Engaging Men and Youth in Prevention

This is the grants/program information from the Department of Justice. http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/ovw-grant-program-factsheet.pdf

The DoJ reports on 21 different grants doled out to the states.  Ohio received over $8 million in 13 grants. Lots of grants for native American groups in the western states. $400,225,051 for over 750 grants to all states. Just can't find any comprehensive report.  We know violence is down in all areas in the last 20 years—usually attributed to better law enforcement and an aging population.  If it were VAWA, wouldn’t they take credit?

http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/grant2012.htm#oh

I thought I’d found one “results” report that might show a project had made a difference—the Safe Haven Demonstration project in Chicago (report was 2005 and 2008), but I was wrong.  Mainly, it was urging whites in a supervisory role to be more sensitive to cultural differences (2005) and noting how many families had been served with the additional money from VAWA since the program had been in place before 2002. 

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/fss/supp_info/DV/SafeHavenSiteExperienceFullReport.pdf

Going after Newt with the G-Word

Notice how liberals always bring up the scary G-word? And I don't mean God.

"On Wednesday night, Candance Gingrich-Jones, the openly gay half-sister of GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, appeared on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show and endorsed President Barack Obama."

They do that hoping to defeat Republicans who might be supporters of Newt, who didn't reject a family member who was gay. That's how narrow they are and how little they know about Republicans, who love their gay relatives, some of whom are also Republicans. They've got one finger pointing out and three pointing toward themselves for hypocrisy, devisiveness, and fear mongering.

Fewer children adopted after equality rules force agencies to shut

Many Lutherans are misled about the end result of the push for equality for all things homosexual. Our congregation, UALC, has recently left the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which had decided to impose on its 10,000 congregations the minority belief that God will bless non-celebate gay clergy. As one Lutheran writer (not of that synod) noted, it is a form of secular fundamentalism, whereby the prevailing culture must be obeyed or you are not a loving, giving congregation. When I say misled it's because, 1) most of those 10,000 congregations never even got a chance to vote, or were unaware that the task force after of 20 years of failing kept rewriting and nudging and finally won in August 2009, and 2) this isn't the end of the story.

In the UK, there are adoptable children going without parents because Christian agencies closed rather than place children against their Biblical principles of married couples. In Canada, which has recognized gay marriage for some years and discussion of it negatively from church pulpits is hate speech, the courts are now reviewing polygamy, polyandry and polyamory for legal status and inclusion in employee benefits.

In the U.S. the definition of hate crimes was expanded in 2010 (and the word FAMILY was redefined for employee benefits) in the Defense Appropriations Act, and it's not a stretch to see that it will go from bodily harm to speech causing mental or spiritual distress. In the U.S., the most vulnerable population is not the unborn who can be sliced and diced and ripped from the womb with approval of our President, but an extremely small special demographic with the highest income and education.

So, even if a Christian agency or a Christian church decides to "go along to get along" with the culture, they will then have to face the next hurdle. I'm sure the next ELCA task force on sexuality is already meeting. If a gay couple in a loving stable relationship is acceptable, why not a family where wife #4 hasn't been able to conceive and wants an infant of her own to share with the sister-wives, or why not a woman with four boy-toys who decides she wants to raise a toddler and she can provide a more economically secure home with five incomes instead of one or two, than a married couple with one?

Fewer children adopted after equality rules force agencies to shut - Telegraph

Polyamorists decry anti-polygamy law - The Globe and Mail

Read The Bill: H.R. 2647 - GovTrack.us

Benefits for gay couples, but not straight?

There are lots of reasons heterosexual couples don't get married, but live in "committed" relationships whereby benefits and legal and medical power of attorney might be helpful, or a tuition break for the girlfriend's out of wedlock teenager, or a gym membership, etc.

One or both might still be married to someone else.

If one or the other married, they might lose their alimony or a deceased spouse's benefits.

They are related to each other and live in one of the states that have consanguinity laws. One half of the states prohibit the marriage of first cousins. Some states also prohibit the marriage of a step-parent and a child, or an in-law and a child. But marriage among cousins is extremely common among immigrant groups.

One or both accept polygamy and don't wish to separate from their legal spouse.

Both have adult children from previous marriages and don't want to do anything to change the line of inheritance for wealth for their children, and prefer to take care of their partner in other ways.

They are different religions and can't come to an agreement and don't want to upset their parents.

They look down on the other's ethnicity or cultural group and don't want the association (Korean/Japanese or different first nations group or Sharia/Sunni).

They've been through a nasty divorce several times and have completely soured on the idea of marriage, but not relationships.

They are very close to former in-laws and don't wish to bring in a "new" spouse to the relationship mix.

Their place of employment has nepotism rules and one would lose a job or be transferred if they were married.

Same-Sex Benefits Ban Roils El Paso - WSJ.com

The Tax Treatment of Domestic Partner Benefits - NYTimes.com

New Benefits for Same-Sex Partners - NYTimes.com

Health Benefits: Dependent Certification - Benefits - The Ohio State University

So how long before the federal government, corporations and universities decide to be fair to straight, shacking-up couples?

Poverty study features tiny demographic

There's a new poverty report out on gay and lesbian couples who are poor (saw it in USA Today). Someone was running out of things to study, because in cities the poverty rate for male couples is 3.3% and for married couples 5.1%. Gay men are the wealthiest and best educated democraphic in the country--and yes, I'm sure some might be poor and uneducated. It's a tiny demographic to begin with. And children of same sex couples are less likely to be poor than children of single women simply because there are two incomes and 4 eyes. Apparently the study authors want to prove that lack of marriage benefits hurts children. Sorry, won't wash. For years no one but us paid our insurance, we had no retirement plan until we were in our 50s and I'm not eligible for my husband's Social Security because of my teacher's pension. Neither the government nor marriage can fix some things.

Traditional marriage between a man and woman, with the woman married to the father of her children, is statistically best in every study done for children in every category. That doesn't mean there aren't individual exceptions or that you didn't have a wonderful step-father, or a fabulous single mom. Think big here. Very few children grow up in poverty when it's done the way God planned it.