War Is Declared (Li'l Andy Sullivan Hissy Alert)

AndrewSullivan.com -- The Daily Dish ^ | 2/24/04 | Andrew Sullivan

[beaversmom]

Wow, you live in Texas. Are you in an area that's leftist? I feel your pain. Have a drink for me too.

[MrB]

Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states

This recognition of the sovereignty of the states is just a ploy - handy Andy KNOWS that the incorporation doctrine will force ALL the states to recognize the legal status of these unions.

[Peach]

Andrew needs to understand, and I believe he does, that the radical gay agenda is all about recruiting our children and lowering the age of sexual consent.

Tammy Bruce's book The Death of Right and Wrong is a useful book to read regarding gay marriage, the gay agenda in our public schools and the leftists who promote them.

Bruce is a lesbian and former president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW. She has long since left NOW and condemns them AND the radical gay agenda thoroughly in her book.

It is one of the best books I've ever read and explains what is wrong with the left and the radical gays. Bruce has worked with Congress and Phyllis Schafley on these matters and is currently a commentator for FNC.

Bruce feels the radical leftists and gays have a mental disease called malignant narcissism and explains how it is rooted in trauma that never attempts recovery. These individuals, instead of seeking psychological help, are focusing on social change. In other words, they want the rest of society to mirror their own hurt and pain.

She makes a very convincing case for the fact that an entire wing of politics is invested in the victim-hood of its constituency, the leaders of which are trying to work out their demons on society.

The book is shocking and details how the radical left and gays have espoused sexualizing our children and how supposedly mainstream supporters of those efforts have stated publicly that "Sex is not harmful to children...there are many ways even the smallest of children can partake in it" (page 193). As outrageous as this sounds, it is not some fringe group of marginalized pedophiles that want this evil perpetrated to rationalize their depravity, but rather the leaders of the "special interest" groups on the Left, sponsored by their friends in the media. Well-documented facts throughout the book reveal this agenda clearly.

This is a MUST read book in order to take on the left using their own words against them.

When mainstream America realizes what is going on, we will be more aware and able to stop this dangerous agenda from moving forward.

Sorry for the long post, but I cannot stress more strongly how important this issue is and how this book will help us fight this fight.

[zook]

"...it is up to the states to decide"

Nonsense. A state's action (actually, the action of a state court, typically in the absence of any citizen or legislative vote) to allow gay marriage imposes an obligation on other states. It's clearly a federal issue and a constitutional one as well.

[hchutch]

Andrew Sullivan does some good things from time to time.

However, on this, he has IGNORED the fact that the whole issue did NOT spring up through the legislators elected by the people.

President Bush said very clearly that if the courts persisted, there would be no other option but to amend the Constitution. The activism of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the defiance of the law by the city of San Francisco forced the President to take this step.

[Arkinsaw]

Well, I am with Sullivan on this: however desirable or undesirable gay marriage is, it is up to the states to decide. Conservatives who are in favor of the Marriage Amendment are as guilty of anti-federalism as Liberals would be if they proposed an amendment mandating gay marriage.

I beg to differ. I am a big proponent of States Rights. I have defended Nevada's right to allow prostitution, California's right to decide medical marijuana themselves, etc.

But there are some things that are so foundational that we must have as common culture in order to remain a Union. Slavery was one of those things that we just could not culturally remain in a single Union with some states free and some slave. Likewise, having the heavily urbanized States allow homosexual marriage and the rural States disallowing it will only exacerbate the gap between the two.

Business should be good for fire-eaters and super-holy abolitionists though.

I'll defend Massachussets right to have its own brand of civil unions, but I won't defend their right to alter something that is so fundamental to the common culture that has existed for thousands of years without change.

[beaversmom]

That's what I'm thinking. Once it gets going in one state--it will be forced all over the country. You can't count on the supremes to sort it out--we've seen how the majority of them come down on issues like this.

[anniegetyourgun]

If it is war, it should be noted that the homosexual activists and their elected friends and court officials started it. They are the ones promoting the upheaval.

[ChadGore]

Why is it that liberals only have "fightin' words" for their fellow Americans ?

So much liberal hate.

[ChadGore]

Why is it that liberals only have "fightin' words" for their fellow Americans ?

So much liberal hate.

[zook]

Andy is simply a knucklehead on this issue. Hopefully, he'll lead the charge for Nader, since I doubt there's any way Ketchup Boy will support gay marriage.

[KingNo155]

Can someone please tell me what "civil rights" Gays are denied?

[Peach]

Read about how homosexual children molest their children:


THURSDAY
FEBRUARY 21
2002

WorldNetDaily

On Feb. 2, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that it was endorsing homosexual adoption. The response from the pro-family community was woefully inadequate. It consisted of bellyaching about the flawed or biased nature of available studies, hand wringing about the lack of empirical evidence or the simple assertion that children of two-parent, married heterosexual couples do best.

The report made by the AAP's Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health says that there is "no existing data to support the widely held belief that there are negative outcomes" for children raised by homosexual parents. Furthermore, the committee asserts, "No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up with one or more gay parents."

While there is ample evidence to show that children of married couples in intact families fare better than children of single parents or divorced couples, reliable studies comparing children raised in traditional families to those raised by cohabitating adults who engage in homosexual practices are few and far between but they do exist and should have been cited to refute the AAP's claims.

The study with the largest number of children was completed by Cameron and Cameron of the Family Research Institute and published in 1998. It examined all appellate cases of custody disputes involving a homosexual parent in 29 states to 38 appeals cases involving custody disputes drawn randomly from 1956 to 1991.

The advantages of selecting cases that reach the appeals court level are many: They offer official distillations of large bodies of information that have passed through two or more layers of the legal system. Also, the children in these studies tend to be older, thereby providing evidence of long-term effects. Furthermore, unlike studies done with volunteers, in which all relevant data is available only to the investigator, the relevant data in Cameron and Cameron is available for public inspection in essentially every law library in the United States.

It was the first study to examine the character of homosexual and heterosexual parents in an adversarial setting. The results were startling. Eighty-two percent of the homosexual parents versus 18 percent of the heterosexual parents were recorded as having poor character. More importantly, of the recorded harms to children, which included molestation and physical abuse, 97 percent were attributed to the homosexual parent.

The study with the second largest number of children of homosexuals is the only one that has compared children of coupled married heterosexual parents and coupled cohabiting heterosexual parents to coupled paired homosexual parents.

Dr. Sotirios Sarantakos, an associate professor of sociology in Australia, ran an investigation to compare the school performance of 58 children who were being raised by homosexual couples to 58 closely matched children being raised by married couples and 58 children being raised by cohabiting partners.

The children's school teachers were ask to rate their scholastic achievements, participation in varies group activities as well as their socialization skills. The teachers also reported on parental involvement through their observations as well as by interviewing the children.

The children of homosexual couples scored dramatically lower than the average of the children of the other two groups in verbal skills, vocabulary, composition and basic mathematical skills. The children of the homosexual couples performed better in social studies but only slightly. Also, there was an important difference in the social development. The children of homosexual parents were less likely to be involved with sports or other group activities. They were considered by their teachers to be introverts and loners, and were uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from that of their co-habiting homosexual parent.

Far from being ideal parents, the homosexual couples were less likely to visit the children's schools, volunteer or help the children with their homework.

Sarantakos was published in 1996 in the obscure journal, Children Australia. He gave no indication that he was aware of the "best interest of the child" argument being used to promote gay adoptions. He made no reference to any of the published studies regarding homosexual parents that could best be described as "junk science," nor has his report been cited in any of the contentious literature about homosexual parenting.

Pro-family groups can be forgiven for not citing Sarantakos. It is not available in any of the conventional databases or indexes. (A synopsis is available through Family Research Institute.) However, Cameron and Cameron should be a primary weapon in the quiver of those who defend children and work to keep them from being used as trophies for the mainstreaming of homosexuality and the advancement of gay rights.

[zook]

"We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will."

Oh no! I think I hear the sound of sassaying off in the distance!

[AlbionGirl]

Well you've just lost the 1st battle w/your group's penchant for trashing the law in SF. Less takers to your plan is what you've gained from that display of arrogance not more. It was treated as the shot across the bow it was intended to be.

Too bad, but your group can be an unsightly, contra-nature phenomenon when allowed it's free reign.

If your group had been smarter they would have tried to change the marriage situation in the Country via the law and the system. No matter how long or arduous the battle. It's not incumbent upon any rational being to elevate the biologically anomalous with parity to the biologically sound. You just better get used to that!

[zook]

oops, make that "sashaying"

[Peach]

From the article above: It was the first study to examine the character of homosexual and heterosexual parents in an adversarial setting. The results were startling. Eighty-two percent of the homosexual parents versus 18 percent of the heterosexual parents were recorded as having poor character. More importantly, of the recorded harms to children, which included molestation and physical abuse, 97 percent were attributed to the homosexual parent.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Good Lord! Looks like a badly made-up Klingon warrior, from Star Trek: The Next Generation...! :)

[Betaille]

"since I doubt there's any way Ketchup Boy will support gay marriage."

Check his record... he DOES support gay marriage, he just wont admit that in any debate. He voted against the defense of marriage act. If the rest of the senate voted the way he did states would have been FORCED to recognize gay marriage.

[DeweyCA]

Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign.

Bush IS letting politics and the rule of law take their course. All of that is what is involved in amending the Constitution.