Thursday, September 25, 2014


Yesterday I came across this picture and posted it to Facebook:

Shortly thereafter, my friend Tim posted the following comment:

“Can you explain this quote to me? How is it Bullying to fight for the right for gay people to marry. Why should they not be allowed to express their love and devotion to each in the same manner that you and I can?”

As is my custom, I’m taking a response that turned out to be rather long, and posting it to my blog for ease of reading. Tim, the rest of this is for you. :-)

First of all, I’d like to point out that that’s actually a great question. The problem is that it’s unfortunately based on a false premise. If I may, I’d like to deal with that part—the false premise—first.

Gay people have always had the right to marry. If an man and a woman walk into a courthouse and ask for a marriage license, their sexual orientation is never an issue. They can be straight, gay, bi, pan, or whatever other term they might choose to identify as—or any combination of the above. What matters is that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, so the fact that they are a man and a woman is sufficient proof that they can logically be married.

Likewise, if two men walk into the same courthouse and ask for a marriage license, their sexual orientation is also a nonissue. Since marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the union of a man and a man does not meet that criterion. It doesn’t matter if both men are straight; they still can’t get married because two men cannot logically form a marriage. It has nothing to do with sexual preference; it has to do with the definition of a word.

The only way one can argue that the above scenarios create a situation of inequality for gays is if one argues that the definition of a straight person is someone who marries a person of the opposite sex, and the definition of a gay person is someone who wants to marry a person of the same sex. Unfortunately, this definition poses a significant problem for the marriage redefinition movement because it relegates homosexuality to being a choice. If whether or not someone be gay is wholly dependent upon the type of person he or she chooses to be with, then being gay does not constitute an immutable condition and thus cannot be subject to “equal rights” legislation. Conversely, if whether or not someone be gay is not dependent upon the type of person he or she chooses to be with, then the definition of marriage does not constitute an unequal condition because a gay person has just as much right to marry as a straight person does.

This is that major difference between the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and the so-called Civil Rights movement of the 2010s. In the former, individuals were fighting for rights that others had but they did not. In the latter, individuals are fighting for new rights to be created for all. (For example, redefining marriage as including the union of a man and a man would give two straight men just as much right to enter into such a marriage as two gay men—which, as demonstrated, is exactly what we have now—unless, of course, being gay is a choice, in which case the entire argument disintegrates in a puff of logic.)

So, all that being said, let’s turn to your question: what is the quote referencing? In the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, people turned to the law to protect them. Where the law failed, they worked to change the law; and when the law failed to be enforced, they worked to vote out those who failed to enforce it. In the so-called Civil Rights movement of the 2010s, people are searching for any random judge who is sympathetic to their cause, then having their case tried in his or her jurisdiction so they can override the will of the people and force a new definition upon all of us.

Let’s imagine the following scenario: I am pulled over for doing 100 mph in a 55-mph zone. When I go to court, I plead “not guilty” because I define the word “mile” as “10,000 feet”, so I was really only doing 52.8 mph. Because I explicitly planned to do this in a jurisdiction where the judge will sympathize with my cause, the judge rules in my favor and forms a legal precedent. I then demand that everyone else accepts my definition of “mile” as equally valid to the other, established definition. which I enforce by starting a massive media campaign that labels anyone who disagrees with my definition as a hateful bigot who is out of touch with the needs of mays (a word I invented, meaning “people who prefer a ‘mile’ to be ‘10,000 feet’). After all, we can’t help that we prefer that definition; we were born that way, so everyone else has to abandon their definition of “mile” and accept our competing definition as the valid one.

Various nations, states, and municipalities then vote on legislation defining the world “mile” as 5,280 feet. Where the legislation passes, mays in the area go out and vandalize churches and temples whose members tend to espouse this definition. Several churches are burned to the ground, and one individual is caught on surveillance video planting a bomb at a rather large temple. The police are never able to break the code of silence surrounding his identity, despite the thousands of counts of attempted murder; no one will identify him because, after all, he’s a hero!

If anyone in a position of particular authority is found to espouse the traditional definition of “mile”, mays tell the media how horrible this person is and, if they can’t sue the individual, keep his name in the news while boycotting his organization, until he is finally fired for being a bigot (because, after all, anyone who believes a mile is 5,280 feet obviously hates those who believe otherwise). Police officers who pull over mays for doing 130 in a 70 are vilified in the press and lose their jobs and pensions; those whose children are run over by mays doing 45 in a school zone are told that they can’t complain, because that would infringe upon the rights of others.

Mays who use the metric system take upon themselves the name of “Spartans”, and those who can’t decide which system to use become “bidistincials.” Anyone who wonders if he or she might be may is labeled “questioning” and encouraged to explore those feelings, since that will further swell the numbers of the group. The group then invites vematies—a group of people who feel that the word “vegetable” should be redefined to include tomatoes—to join, thus creating the SMBVQ movement. (Most mays think vematies are fairly subhuman, but some vematies are also may, and after all, including them further increases their numbers.) Anyone who feels that any of these opinions are even slightly wrong—or even that those questioning their distinciality should consider the actual definition of the word “mile”—are, again, made out to be bigots.

As things start to go the mays’ way, other groups emerge claiming that they, too, deserve equal rights. One such group believes that a mile should be 20,000 feet, not just 10,000, and that their definition should also be included. People who maintain the true definition of “mile” point to this as evidence that no good can come of all this redefinition on the fly, but the SMBVQ movement dismisses these other groups as extremists whose beliefs don’t matter, since they’ll never pose any danger to respectable people. (Yes, that’s what people said about mays, just a few decades ago, but that’s different. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

My point in this analogy is that everything I’ve mentioned corresponds directly to the fight to redefine marriage. It’s not about equal rights, though obviously many people have been led to believe this; it’s about forcing everyone to believe the way they do, regardless of what or how valid others’ differing positions might be. Furthermore, redefining words on the fly strikes at the heart of American contractual law, which explicitly states that this is illegal. If we can redefine “marriage” over the strenuous objections of We the People, why redefine “mile”? How about “life”? “murder”? “rape”? “love”? “assault”? We are literally in the early stages of an Orwellian, Newspeak-driven dystopia, and it all comes back to a small minority of individuals in a coordinated and calculated effort to suppress freedom of thought and dissenting opinion.

That is why this is a “bully movement”, Tim, and if the United States Supreme Court reverses its judgment in Baker v. Nelson (1972), I would be completely unsurprised if it literally tears our nation apart and takes us into a second Civil War. And frankly, the only thing I find scarier than that possibility is the alternative: that We the People are already so complacent as to roll over and let the entire nation implode around us, instead of just the portion so enamored with ignorance that it attempts to suppress others’ ability to think.

Thursday, June 5, 2014


Just a cross-post to my other blog:


Friday, January 3, 2014

Equal Rights, Part II

Yesterday morning, I posted a blog entry entitled Equal Rights, which dealt with Fair to All’s efforts to protect the rights of those who disagree with marriage redefinition. Strangely, no one chose to respond on this page, but I did get several responses in a thread on Mormons Building Bridges. I have dealt with each individually, but one was lengthy enough that I have chosen to add it as a separate blog entry, as well.

MBB member Gina Crivello stated:
“Jeff's blog post to show how inaccurate my and Erin’s comparison between segregation and basic LGBTQ rights. He asked for my thoughts.) - ‘Should bakers and photographers and florists also be forced to provide services to Westboro Baptist Church rallies? How about a KKK lynching?’
“You are comparing a group of people who need housing and employment protection as well as legal protection for their family (which marriage would provide) to groups of people who seek to harass and kill others. Our comparison is not ‘severely’ inappropriate, imo. Supporters of segregation had (in their mind) sound scriptural, Bible-based reasons to continue to discriminate, separate themselves, and to justify their right to not serve black people in white-only establishments and felt it was ‘God’s way.’”

Much like yesterday, the remainder of my comments will be addressed to her.

First of all, Gina, I’m not talking about “God’s way”; I’m talking about legality and logic. “God’s way” is certainly a valid consideration, but when there is significant debate as to what “God’s way” is, it would be extremely difficult to enter it into law. So, let’s deal with what I am talking about.

Despite your erroneous charge, I have never once argued that people should be able to deny housing to certain people. What I argue is that a business owner should be able to deny any specific service to everyone (as opposed to specific individuals or groups). It’s all well and good that gay people require housing, but if I’m going to be sued for not renting a property to a gay person, I would think the fact that I don’t own any properties to rent might be a relevant consideration.

So, let’s speak from what services I can provide. Personally, I’m a database developer. So let’s imagine a gay man comes to me and asks me to develop a database in Servoy. I respond that I’m very sorry, but I don’t do Servoy development. If he would like a database designed in FileMaker or SQL, I’d be happy to help him, but Servoy is outside my list of services provided. The man walks away, finds someone else to design his Servoy database, then proceeds to sue me for discrimination.

When the case arrives before the court, I argue that there was no personal discrimination involved, that it wouldn’t matter if he were gay, straight, or anything else; I don’t design Servoy databases and never have. The judge, however, sees that I have provided databases for many clients, so I must also provide a database for this client, and I must provide the specific kind of database the client requests. I am fined and sentenced to prison for violation of anti-discrimination laws.

Does this sound ridiculous? Of course! But it is no different than Jack Phillips being told that even though his business does not provide garriage cakes, the fact that he provides any type of cake requires him to provide all types of cake. It doesn’t matter that he wouldn’t provide that specific type of cake to a straight person; it doesn’t matter that he would provide other types of cake to a gay person. A gay person requested a cake and he said no, so he’s a criminal.

As far as I can see, Gina, there is definitely discrimination at work here, but the plaintiffs aren’t the victim. From what I can see, FairToAll is fighting to end discrimination; is discriminating against Jack Phillips somehow less wrong, just because he doesn’t happen to be gay?

As always, your comments are appreciated.

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Equal Rights

I am a member of a Facebook group called “Mormons Building Bridges,” the purpose of which is as follows:
“Mormons Building Bridges is dedicated to conveying love and acceptance to LGBTQI individuals. We support all our brothers and sisters—those who identify as LGBTQI and those who identify as same-sex attracted—and work to make them feel welcome in our homes and congregations. Mormons Building Bridges is not sponsored by nor do we represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any political party or caucus.”

I wholly support this endeavor and am actively involved in the group. However, I am constantly surprised by how much many group members’ politics diverge from my own Moderate positions. For example, the most active members seem to trend morally Liberal and consequently support current redefinition efforts. To wit, a recent post linked to a web site called, which demands equality for those who disagree with marriage redefinition, calling it—as ultraliberals often do—an “anti-equality group.” My purpose today is to show that this allegation is not only erroneous, but exactly opposite the truth.

Drilling down a bit, I’d like to focus on the first comment on this thread, which deals with the section of Fair to All entitled “Real People, Real Harm.” This section gives examples of actual individuals who have been sued or charged with crimes, each for having the audacity to exercise his or her right of conscience. The comment, by a woman named Erin (whom I actually really like), states:
“Bakers & photographers & florists cannot refuse to serve homosexuals. This strikes me as exactly like the colored lunch counter phenomena of the Jim Crow era. I agree that it is painful, but I also believe that it is necessary. If you want to do business in America, you have to do it fairly.”

This blog post is to show how inaccurate that comparison is. I thus address the remainder of this post to her.

Erin, the problem I have with your argument, re: “real people,” is that none of the people on this site—and frankly, no one in history, of whom I am aware—has “refuse[d] to serve homosexuals.” For example, in several of the cases cited, the store owners specifically stated that they would be happy to serve gay people; they just refuse to support certain events. Should bakers and photographers and florists also be forced to provide services to Westboro Baptist Church rallies? How about a KKK lynching? If the services are being refused because of the event instead of the individual(s), there is no legal discrimination at play.

Because of this, the question becomes one of how we define “gay.” Obviously, there are two logical possibilities: either sexual orientation is hardwired into our person, or it is not. I assume most people in Mormons Building Bridges would argue that it is indeed hardwired, and while I don’t believe it’s that simple, I basically agree. However, let’s consider both possibilities and see how things turn out.

Scenario 1: Sexual Orientation Is a Choice.

Put differently, a person’s sexuality is based on his or her relationship: a gay man who enters into a relationship with a woman suddenly becomes straight; a straight woman who enters into a relationship with a woman suddenly becomes gay. I don’t think anyone really accepts this position, but it is logical and thus must be dealt with.

If we argue that a person’s sexuality is based on one’s actions, then Jack Phillips—the Colorado baker who is facing jail time for discrimination—is guilty as charged. He has openly admitted that he will bake a cake for an opposite-sex commitment ceremony (which, if sexual orientation be a choice, renders its participants straight), but he will not bake a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony (which renders its participants gay).

The point is that if it‘s impossible for a gay person to be in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, and it is also impossible for a straight person to to be in a relationship with someone of the same sex, then denying cakes to same-sex couples is discriminatory against gays. However, even though Mr. Phillips is clearly guilty, there is no crime to be prosecuted, because being gay is clearly a choice that one makes and thus not subject to nondiscrimination law.

So, if Scenario 1 be true, then Fair to All’s assertion is also true and Mr. Phillips’ rights must be protected.

Scenario 2: Sexual Orientation Is Not a Choice.

If sexual orientation is an immutable personal characteristic, something hardwired into one’s psyche, then a gay person who chooses to enter into a “traditional” (opposite-sex) relationship does not cease to be gay; and a straight person who chooses to enter into a same-sex relationship does not cease to be straight. Again, I suspect this is the position taken by most people in MBB.

If this be the case, then the validity of the lawsuit against Phillips is based entirely on whether he would offer services to straight people that are not available to gays. This could be shown in one of two ways:

a) We could establish that if a gay person asked him to bake a graduation cake, he would refuse; if a gay person asked him to bake a baptismal cake, he would refuse; etc..


b) We could establish that if a straight person asked him to bake a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony, he would not refuse the request.

Barring either of the above criteria, Mr. Phillips is clearly not discriminating based on personal characteristics. If there is no service he would provide to a straight person that he would not provide to a gay person, there is no discrimination against persons and thus, no violation.

So, if Scenario 2 be true, then Fair to All’s assertion is also true and Mr. Phillips’ rights must be protected.

If anyone can come up with a third scenario, please post it in the comments. I’m more than happy to listen! Otherwise, I think I have sufficiently shown that Fair to All is anything but “anti-equality”; on the contrary, it is performing a great work for humanity, protecting otherwise helpless individuals from persons who use the word “equality” as code for “bigotry.”

As always, my 2¢.

Update: check out Part II!