- Senator Curt Meier
- Senator Leslie Nutting
- Senator Stan Cooper
- Representative Mark Semlek
- Representative Frank Peasley
- Representative Richard Cannady
- Representative Amy Edmonds
- Representative Allen Jaggi
- Representative Owen Petersen
- Representative Elaine Harvey
- Representative Gerald Homosexual Sodomite (out of respect for his last name)
- Representative Kendell Kroeker
- Representative Bob Brechtel
- Representative Tom Lockhart
In case you were wondering what these Judeo-Christina principles were, here is a partial list:
- The dignity of human life
- Marriage, the traditional monogamous family
- A national work ethic
- The right to a God centered education
- Morality-obedience to God's word
- Freedom- common decency
- Our personal accountability to God
If these "values" are something you'd like to teach in the privacy of your own home fine, whatever, you have a right to do that, but this is not something that should be forced onto Wyoming Legislators! I respect the concept of freedom of religion and I believe this is a concept that makes America great! Bottom line, don't cram your beliefs down my throat! I have a brain and I can think for myself thank you very much!
The next legislative session begins in February of 2012 and it is a budget session. This means the session only last for 20 days and as an unofficial rule of thumb most of the work should be centered around budget issues, hence the name.
However, if you read the recent article in the Casper Star WYWATCH is indeed going to try and bring up the whole gay marriage debate again. Even though it's a budget session and even though it would take a 2/3 majority vote to even be considered.
I hope this makes you as mad as it does me! These folks wasted enough of our time in the last session talking about social issues that, frankly, I don't think most Wyoming Citizens even care about. So now they are going to do it again??? In a budget session??? That don't make no sense!!
With all the other issues this state is facing in regards to energy, employment, health care, not to mention putting together a multi-billion dollar budget, why do they want to waste time on social issues like gay marriage?
Think about and ask yourself this, "If Jeran and Ricky Martin get married this year how is that going to affect me in a negative way?" on the flip side "If I get laid off next year because my company closes up shop in WY, or a million barrels of oil accidentally get dumped into the North Platte River, how is that going to affect me?" What would you rather have our legislature working on?
Jeran
Great post Jeran! Thanks again for a glimpse in to your character and worldview.
ReplyDeleteYou stated:
“If these "values" are something you'd like to teach in the privacy of your own home fine, whatever, you have a right to do that, but this is not something that should be forced onto Wyoming Legislators!”
This touches on two issues.
• practices taught in one’s own home
• perception that an organization beliefs are being “forced onto Wyoming Legislators!”
Concerning point number one; “If these "values" are something you'd like to teach in the privacy of your own home fine, whatever, you have a right to do that…”
I believe that one of the primary trumpet calls of those on the front lines of social experimentation is to posit the question; How does what I do in my personal life affect you? Indeed your last paragraph of your blog entry implements this tactic when you ask; “If Jeran and Ricky Martin get married this year how is that going to affect me in a negative way?”
What you have quite effectively illustrated here in this excellent blog entry is that what happens and is taught in the privacy of one’s own home is not restricted to the confines of their home. Yes, we as individuals are but a single unit which makes up the fabric of society that we interact with and influence on a daily basis.
This brings us to the second point, which makes what I’m certain is a false proposition. You attempt to lead your readers to believe that an organization is somehow forcing the legislators to sign the Family Values Pledge against their will. This too is an effective tactic used mainly to support you labeling of an organization or group as something they are not. In this case you label them as a “hate group”. This is also a covert method of spinning what many recognize as a “conspiracy theory”.
It is far more likely that those legislators who signed the Family Values Pledge were taught those values in their homes, schools and communities long before they became legislators. Signing the Family Values Pledge is nothing more than affirming their commitment to the family and the core principles which assure the consistent and strong social fabric which this country was founded and framed upon. In other words; it is far more likely to be providence rather than the conspiracy you attempt put forward.
Let’s recap:
• Point number one is a self refuting argument, as illustrated by the author himself.
• Point number two begins with a false preposition.
Both are fatal flaws of logic, laws we simply can’t rewrite or avoid.
Thanks,
Marc
Marc, I'm not sure I'm following your logic, are you saying that if I marry Ricky Martin it will affect you?? and are you saying that being gay is "social experimentation?"
ReplyDeleteI firmly stand by my comments that WYWATCH is a hate group (I assume you're a member?) I was at the capital almost daily during the last session. I listened to many of their members testify at committee meetings and they are indeed a hate group!
And they are threatening to legislators, to suggest that they casually stroll the halls of the capital and ask law maker to glance at their literature is false. They are belligerent, forceful, and intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them!
I assure you we will win this war on marriage equality, you may win a battle here and there, but make no mistake I will one day be allowed to marry the man of my dreams and our marriage will be perfectly legal!
According to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) a hate group is one which has a "primary purpose to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization." Now Marc, that would seem to define WYWATCH. It seems to me they have boldly promoted animosity, hostility, and malice against gays and lesbians based on sexual orientation, using the Bible as a weapon of choice. I am sure they don't like to be called a "hate group" but until they stop fitting the FBI definition, I think the name fits.
ReplyDeleteIt always amazes me how folks like WyWatch always attempt to rewrite history with a Christian thrust especially when it works out for your cause. First of all, it is of historical FACT our founding fathers were not all Christians. Sure, I bet there are some out there who wished they were, but history indicates otherwise. Additionally, even if they were, rewriting history to your advantage is a fairly acceptable practice by some ignorant folks out there trying to force their moralistic views onto the rest of us. Sure they use the term “God” frequently, but much like AA it is a term used to identify a higher power or authority, not a commitment to any religion or even Christianity.
ReplyDeleteWYWatch is a hate group. Simply look at the organization's affiliations and it doesn't take one long to realize some of those organizations are tied to what the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as a "Hate Group." Hey, the Arian Brotherhood considers themselves to be Christians as well. At lease they take ownership in what they truly are instead of attempting to hide behind a very thin veil of Christianity.
As for the voluntary affirmation conspiracy theory, well sure, if you voluntarily sign your affirmation to certain personal ideals is fine. However WYWatch has made it no secret the intent of sending out these affirmations is to help them target those legislators whom do not fall in line with their agenda, and to make attempts to publicly display to the voters which are not of good moral character. This is not a "conspiracy theory" rather a well-known tactic used by groups to intimidate.
Speaking of flawed logic, how can you defend an organization who is on one hand against government interference into our personal lives yet advocates laws which interfere with our personal lives and liberties? After all, it wasn't the gays pushing for DOMA. It wasn't the homosexuals pushing for amendments in many states' constitutions to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman. If you assume our founding fathers wanted it this way, why didn't they write in a manner which defined marriage as between a man and a woman?
Finally, I personally take it as an insult what Jeran and many others like him are forcing a "social experiment" or "social agenda" down the throats of our legislators. Social Experimentation is a pop term used to recolor a civil rights movement into something more palatable to the average person under the premise it is "socialistic" or "socialism."
And I am not anonymous, it's Tim Reid. I just couldn't post with my profile for some reason.
ReplyDeleteI think these are balancing issues and context is key. Americans have the right to freely practice their religion yet the government cannot establish religion or favor religions over one another or over nonreligion. Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin are free to practice that religious belief openly and their churches, mosques and synagogues can deny membership to gay people as they so choose. HOWEVER, what cannot happen is that the government can't put the force of its laws behind turning one class of American citizens into a lesser or second class based upon the religious views of the majority. Gays are American citizens, civic benefits accrue to married American citizens, those civic benefits cannot be denied to gays by the government because of religous belief. Even couching it as "tradition" or for "health" reasons as alleged are insufficient to deny Americans their freedoms as enforced by the State. Now the government could take away all civic benefit of marriage--tax status, protections, etc. for all American citizens and then we'd all be in the same boat, but WYWatch doesn't advocate that. They just advocate the government keeping some people out of the boat because they find their relationships unworthy. That's wrong, is it hate, probably when they purposely use language that dehumanizes their fellow Americans, but it's definitely discrimination.
ReplyDeleteHow the heck is Curt Maeier on the family values list? This is the same man whose wife is divorcing him because he's shacked up with an asian girl half his age, isn't it? So WYWatch is fine with open adultery by pledgees--just not homosexuality? Last time I checked my bible, Jesus Christ didn't mention homosexuality in the New Testament but he did talk about adultery--oh and something about pharisees and sadducees.
ReplyDeleteBlowing in the Wind said:
ReplyDelete“According to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) a hate group is one which has a "primary purpose to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."”
The definition selected is interesting and again somewhat misleading. It leaves the discerning reader wondering if this is their definition and the group or organization in question fits this definition, why has our FBI not followed through by enforcing the law and charging the organization. Are state and federal authorities negligent in not enforcing the laws?
To answer this question we need look no further than the FBI document the “definition” is cited in. It is a citation from; Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines", Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR): Summary Reporting System: National Incident-Based Reporting System, U.S. Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Revised October 1999.
For those not familiar with the handbook, it is a reference manual published to aid FBI Bureaus in completing monthly, quarterly and annual crime reports required by law. In fact, in an apparent effort to clarify misunderstandings like those Blowing in the Wind has advanced, the 2004 revised Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) states the following:
“These definitions are not meant to be used for charging persons with crimes; to the contrary, they are meant to be “receptacles” or “pigeonholes” for reporting crimes that are committed throughout the United States.”
* U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation UCR Handbook revised 2004.
Again the flawed logic of my opponent is exposed for exactly what it is. Blowing in the Wind cleverly introduced what is known as a Red Herring which is another fallacy of logic.
Thanks,
Marc
Marc: I don't understand your logic. Blowin introduced the definitation of a "hate group" for the purpose of discussing whether WyWAtch is a hate group. He didn't mention charging them with any crime--so it's you who seems to be throwing up straw men.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your position on Curt Maier's alleged adultery? What about divorced legislators? Haven't they already shown that they don't hold marriage to be sacred--shouldn't your group work to unseat them or is your biblical disapprobation selectively applied to women and gays?
Lori,
ReplyDeleteIt’s not a straw man as you suggest. The key is, a group or organization must actually be charged with a crime before they can be classified a “hate group” according to the FBI UCR.
Have there been charges or even legitimate allegations leading to investigation and charges against WyWatch? If so please present that evidence.
I’m not at all familiar with the allegations leveled here about Curt Meier. No one here has confirmed the allegations nor have I found anything to confirm it, so at this point it is unsubstantiated rumor; another Red Herring.
Evidence is something that is in short supply on the majority of the posts here.
Thanks,
Marc
Mark, where in the hell does it say a group must be charged with a crime to be considered a hate group? Talk about flawed logic. Regardless, WYWatch's affiliation with groups defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups is enough to convince me of their intentions.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of evidence, since you seem to be quite the researcher here, maybe you can find me the data WYWatch refuses to provide which backs their statements made before our Legislature alleging voters in Wyoming would support redefining marriage? Please find me evidence WYWatch supplied the research methodology to their accusations to the WY Legislature when asked. According to many of the Legislators I contacted they have not, which makes it a crime to falsify testimony in a public hearing. But then again I am quite positive you have a slick explanation for their actions.
Tim Reid