If not for radical judges who circumvent the will of the people by legislating from the bench, how many states would have legalized same-sex marriage today? (There are currently five). Without these fanatical, agenda-driven, left-wing policy pimps sifting through the penumbras of existing law to magically discover formerly obscured legal epiphanies, would there be any state where same-sex marriage was lawful? In thirty-one prior instances (out of thirty-one), when the redefinition of marriage was brought before the people, the measure has flat-out failed. This has been the case not only in red states, but in the blue ones as well.

Americans simply do not want marriage redefined. And as mystifying as it may be to proponents of same-sex marriage, that does not mean Americans hate gays.

Yet, in what was supposed to be the post-everything era in America, the plague of intolerance is apparently still pervasive, so the story goes.

The proof?

Yesterday afternoon, another shade of east-coast blue was added to the rainbow of intolerance. This time, it was the State of New York.

Indeed, it was not a direct vote of the people – like last year’s Proposition 8 in California, for instance, or last month’s ballot initiative in Maine - but for all intents and purposes, the number of states that have said “no” to redefining marriage is now at thirty-two.

By a vote of 38-24 – a far higher margin than most would have anticipated – the New York State Senate said “no” to a bill that would have made same-sex marriage legal. Eight Democrats were among those who voted to maintain the traditional definition of the institution.

The bill had already passed the State Assembly. This was would have been the final step before the governor’s signature made it law.

Jeremy Peters of the New York Times writes:

The vote means that the bill, pushed by Gov. David A. Paterson, is effectively dead for the year and dashes the optimism of gay rights advocates, who have had setbacks recently in several key states.

…

Mr. Paterson made an unusual trip to the Senate floor minutes after the last vote was cast, saying, “These victories come and so do the losses, but you keep on trying.”

…

The debate was as personal as any to take place in the Senate chamber in years. Senators spoke of their experiences as Jews and Baptists, as blacks and women. They spoke of spending long nights contemplating their votes and the deceased gay friends and relatives who inspired their decision.

Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a Democrat who represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, spoke publicly for the first time about her gay brother, who was shunned by her family and moved to France.

To being with, I do sympathize with Senator Hassell-Thompson. I mean that sincerely. But matters of public policy can not be formulated based on emotion. Sound decisions, in any walk of life, can not be scored through emotional filters. The ordeals of her gay brother and family, while heartbreaking and tragic on a micro level, is irrelevant to the macro issue. The adoption of same-sex marriage would have had no bearing on whether or not the senator’s brother was shunned by his family. As callous as that may sound to those whose value sets are defined by their emotions, it isn’t meant to be. What proponents of same-sex marriage fail to realize is that keeping the definition of marriage as it has always been isn’t rooted in hatred of homosexuals, as many gay activists incorrectly charge.

As I have stated repeatedly on this blog, I don’t hate gays.

I don’t hate my siblings either, despite my vehement objections to sibling marriage.

The redefining of marriage to include same-sex couples is a foreign concept in the cumulative of human history. This is not to say that same-sex relationships have been alien to humanity – far from it – but there is no thinker, philosopher, theorist, religious leader, sage, academic, poet or guru who has ever been a proponent of redefining what has been the foundational institution of humankind for millennia.

Not one.

Are we to believe that the gay activists of the last couple of decades posses more wisdom than the whole of humanity that preceded them?

Arrogance, I believe is the word.

As I wrote a year ago in my piece, “I Don’t Hate Gays, Okay? Part Two“:

Is sensitivity to be measured by how much one concedes to the requests and desires of given population groups? Is it not possible to be sensitive and sincerely empathetic to the desires of homosexuals on a personal level while wanting to maintain the traditional definition of marriage on a macro level? These are not mutually exclusive positions.

My purpose here is not to once again make the case against same-sex marriage – or even make the case for traditional marriage. Rather, my contention is that matters of public policy, such as the redefining of marriage, are issues that are to be decided by the people – not frustrated judges who are well aware that their radical agendas cannot pass muster with the American electorate, nor by elected representatives who tug on emotional heartstrings in order to win.

Instead of gays demanding that heterosexuals accept their lifestyle choices – while simultaneously admonishing them for butting into their private lives – how about taking a page from the suffrage movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries and try to change minds through good old fashioned grass roots activism? The arduous, decades-long struggle that led to the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 was far more than just a string of angry protest marches. The idea of giving women the right to vote had to be sold.

Instead of lambasting traditionalists and labeling them as “haters” and “bigots,” how about explaining in reasoned tones why the definition of marriage should be changed? How about clarifying in rational terms why the value system that would permit same-sex marriage is better for America than one that recognizes marriage as a union between one man-one woman? How about defending the notion that same-sex marriage is okay, but sibling marriage is not? Or polygamy? Indeed, rallies are fine, but how about getting out there and engaging with the American public through debates, town hall meetings and other interactive forums? How about facing skeptics and detractors in the arena of ideas and present the best case for the legalization of same-sex marriage? Go out and sell it.

That’s how things get done in this country.

There’s no guarantee, of course, that same-sex marriage can be sold. Think of the movement to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. It didn’t fail for lack of activism or trying.

And if the people of my state find themselves persuaded after years of effective “gay rights” campaigning to vote in favor of same-sex marriage, what then can I say about its legitimacy? Despite my vehement opposition to it, I would grudgingly have to cling to my credibility and consistency by conceding that “the people have spoken.” Indeed, I wouldn’t like it, but no one ever guaranteed me complete satisfaction in this life.

If I am so inclined, there are always other states.

One of Rick Warren’s (and president George W. Bush’s) longtime allies in Uganda, Martin Ssempe, is the author of a classic piece of minority-baiting legislation. Its details belong in the history of genocidal hatred:

The Ugandan penal code already criminalizes sexual relations “against the order of nature,” a characterization that is frequently used to prosecute gays. Under the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, homosexual relations are specifically targeted. Anyone in a position of authority who is aware of a gay or lesbian individual has 24 hours to inform police or face jail time. Individuals found to engage in efforts to sexually stimulate another for the purpose of homosexual relations, or found touching another for that purpose, will face life in prison. Those who engage in “aggravated homosexuality” — defined as repeated homosexual relations or sexual contact with others who are HIV/AIDS infected — will face the death penalty.

This is an act of terror and murder against an already beleaguered minority, and Warren is an accessory to it. As a powerful figure in distributing AIDS funding in Uganda, he cannot bring himself to oppose a law that would condemn someone in a gay relationship to death, and imprison him or her for touching another human being, and inciting a wave of informing on family members and friends and acquaintances in order to terrify a sexual minority. This alleged man of God cannot speak out on this – except to protect his own p.r. His schtick of actually being the nice evangelical – a schtick that got him to Obama’s inauguration – is a lie. If he cannot condemn this fascist act of violence against a tiny minority of vulnerable human beings, then his position in this struggle is clear enough.

Just as he publicly inveighed in favor of stripping gay couples of civil equality in California, and then pretended he didn’t, now he distances himself from Ssempe, while refusing to condemn this law reminiscent of early attempts to wipe out minorities in Serbia, Nazi Germany, and Rwanda. This is classic avoidance in an atmosphere of extreme danger. It is the same as the Catholic church’s disgraceful neutrality in Rwanda and Nazi Germany, as they saw a chance to enable others to wipe out a minority they wished could be wiped off the face of the earth:

Warren won’t go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexual laws generated this response: “The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.” On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: “As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.”

He lies. He has taken sides, whenever possible, to stigmatize, demonize and now physically threaten the lives of gay people in his own country and abroad. And his silence on this issue means the deaths of others. Warren needs to come out and condemn this law as evil, which it is. And to stop hiding his own enmeshment with the most virulent forms of fundamentalist hatred under the veil of media-savvy benevolence.

I will be posting more about this issue in days to come. But I want all who read this to understand that this is not some flippant reaction to some sort of law banning gays from dancing in their little speedos on the street. THIS IS TRULY A LAW MOST LIKELY GOING TO BE PASSED ALLOWING THE HANGING OF GAY MEN AND WOMEN IN THE COUNTRY OF UGANDA.

And what is most shocking is that this proposed legislation does not have the rebuke of one Mr. Rick Warren, a former supporter of the Ugandan president, who is supporting the bill through his ethics minister. I will be writing more about Mr. Warren’s sudden stance of “not taking sides because I am a pastor” later on….but found the need to post something about this disaster now. Please search this story on the web; the lack of action and utter support by some evangelical congressmen is no rumor, but fact.

A Gaythering Storm from FOD Team, Jane Lynch, Alicia Silverstone, Lance Bass, George Takei, LizFeldman, Jason Lewis, Sarah Chalke, Sophia Bush, and lauren – Video.

In the month of October, 2009, President Obama signed the Hate Crimes Bill into law.

For me, I was so happy to have this additional protection for myself and others who posses added fear pertaining to our sexual orientation. Just like African-Americans may have felt fear by just walking down the street in the 1960s, gays and lesbians continue to fear for their own safety and wellbeing today. President Obama acknowledged this reality, and not only gave gays and lesbians better protection under the law, but also extended this protection to people’s religious beliefs. I found this to be a great step forward to help dissipate hate in every realm of our society. However, I guess Pat Roberston and I have very different options.

Now, before I go off, I will say that I can understand anyone’s general fear of losing one’s right to free speech. Being of the general belief that feels that government should only reach so far, I would not want to be of constant worry that what I say could be misconstrued or come back to bite me in the ass.

But really, c’mon….

For one thing, to actually twist this Hate Crimes Bill into being some sort of attack on free speech or religion completely boggles my mind. I find it humorous that the added protection for one’s own religious beliefs is completely ignored my Mr. Robertson. It proves that people like him really do not want a nation based on civil liberties, like FREE SPEECH….., but only want laws and rights based on his own personal belief and agenda.

But lets get down to the nitty gritty. Mr. Robertson, if you are honestly worried about you or other speakers/pastors being liable for hate crimes, then do not incite hate… seriously, if the Chuch has stooped so low as to be worried about being liable for HATE, then maybe it should refocus itself on more Biblical principlas…..perhaps, love?

This all bears one more important point; AS IF. As if you would actually be held responsible for someone else’s actions. Taking past history for an example, one could look at David Duke, perhaps America’s most well-known racist and anti-Semite. For all the hate he instilled in others, never once was he held liable for other members of the KKK’s violent actions. So, Mr. Robertson, unless you plan on being more radical than an infamous KKK Grand Master, I would say you have nothing to worry about.

I am sure this is not the last bitch/moan fest we will hear from the likes of Pat Roberton Inc. All I hope is that, in the future, we will hear what the bitching and moaning is really all about; Less power for you, equal protection for all.

Love,
CAH

Ya know, i got to hand to FOX news. i think they used thier brains enough to realize that this whole story was bullshit. The man works for an equal oppurtunity employer….he needs to find himself somewhere else to work.

When it comes to social issues Europe seems like it wants to set us backwards and doom us for destruction and gives us a ticket straight to hell. How else can you explain the fact that the legal drinking age in European countries is 16, and you can even drink at home with your parents, and how you can allow the perversion of gay marriage to be legal? Yet with all this evil Europe and even Denmark – the first country to allow gay marriage – are still standing, are happier nations than the rest of the world and haven’t been destroyed by God like Sodom and Gomorrah.

In the United States, Europe is usually admired because of its rich art history, but it’s mostly ridiculed and demonized in the media. However, europeans are happier than other nations. As expressed in the introductory paragraph, two major differences between the European Union (E.U.) and the United States (U.S.) is that gay marriage is allowed and the drinking age is far lower.

Drinking while intoxicated (D.W.I) and drinking under influence (D.U.I.) are two big things in the U.S. that shouldn’t be taken lightly. There are a lot of teens deaths because of these conditions, which has given groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) a lot of influence over the government. Not to take away from the seriousness of the issue at hand, but efforts to lower the drinking age to 18 have been impossible, much in thanks to MADD.

As The Washington Post noted the europeans place more emphasis in the driving rather than the drinking . As the article states, in Europe the legal age to drink is 16, however, you start driving when you’re 18. In the U.S. though, teens start driving when they’re 16 and binge drinking when they go to college. That’s why the incidence

“While most European countries issue driver’s licenses at age 18, the difficulty of passing the test, high insurance costs and wide use of trains and buses all mean that young people generally begin to drive much later than in the United States.” European Laws Place Emphasis On the Driving, Not the Drinking

In January 2004, a few days before my 20th birthday I went out with my parents to a Hard Rock Café restaurant in San Francisco, there I ordered a drink that had alcohol and the waitress refused to serve, even though my mom had told explained that she was my mother and it was okay. The waitress still refused, so I ended up having a coke. I come originally from a country where the legal age to drink is 18, however, in private gatherings and even in restaurants you can drink with your parents.

As a kid, I used to have sips of wine or beer and as a tween/teen I could even have one glass of rum and coke, or beer for myself. When I asked my mom, why they let me she explained that she wanted me to “learn how to drink,” so I wouldn’t go crazy drinking when I went out as an adult and I wouldn’t be in an accident. Most of you are probably thinking that’s bad parenting, but I can assure you that I have not once been in an accident that involves alcohol. Stupidity, yes, but alcohol no.

“Incongruously, the way to produce fewer problem drinkers is to create more drinkers overall–that is, to begin to create a culture in which alcohol is not an alluring risk but part of quotidian family life. Of course, that’s a mostly European approach to alcohol, but there’s reason to think it could work here. And it may be the best way to solve the binge-drinking problem.” TIME Magazine: Should You Drink with Your Kids?

If the drinking age were lowered and the driving age were raised, like those crazy europeans do, there will be far less accidents and untimely deaths.

“Eliminate the minimum drinking age, and kids could learn all about alcohol long before they turned 16 and got their driver’s license. Booze wouldn’t seem like some glamorous adult activity.” Alcohol: Problems and Solutions: Get Rid of the Minimum Drinking Age

Now, on another social and important front: gay marriage.

In the United States, gay marriage is a big topic. By not allowing it, U.S. citizens, residents and their foreign partners are being discriminated and treated like second class citizens. I’ve already expressed my feelings towards gay marriage and the reasons that are usually given to prevent it in the post: Gays are destroying the Sanctity of Marriage. Really?! In a nutshell: I’m pro-gay marriage and religious issues or themes shouldn’t be prevented from giving someone their civil rights. Same reasons were even used before with interracial marriage.

Even as recent as earlier this month, when voters in Maine voted against gay marriage, they used reasons as silly as: “they will teach our kids about homosexuality in schools.” In countries such as Denmark and Belgium, where gay marriage is legal there’s not even silly definitions of marriage or distinctions between gay marriage vs heterosexual marriage anymore. Saying that gay marriage is a threat to marriage is playing with people’s ignorance. How a gay couple getting married will affect a straight couple doing so?

“Not only have gay rights had no effect on constantly expanding population rates, but they’ve had no effect on traditional marriage in those European countries where they have the most extensive legal protections. . . This [gay marriages having effect on straight marriages] is relevant because divorce is the real threat to American families, having broken up more than fifty percent of all marriages since it achieved widespread acceptance.”LA NOW: Is gay marriage bad for family? Europe might have the answer

As ridiculous as it sounds when gays counter-attack those who say gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage (and they even dare quoting the Bible), they always say: “want to protect marriage? Outlaw divorce.” Yes, sounds ridiculous, but it’s true.

“Also, unlike gay sex, divorce is forbidden by Jesus himself: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” As we have seen with abortion and guns, the focus on gay marriage is turning out to be a dangerous distraction from the real problem.” Esquire: A Little Counterintuitive Thinking on Gays, Guns, and Dead Babies

Truth is Europe still stands – in one piece – , Armageddon hasn’t fallen on the world and population is not winding down:

“Concerns about the impact of gay marriage on heterosexual behavior are not unique to the United States, of course. European countries that recognize same-sex couples initially had their worriers, too. Over time, however, it became clear that civilization and family life would survive the recognition of gay couples’ rights. Even the conservative governments that came into power have not tried to repeal rights for gay couples in France and the Netherlands.” Slate: Prenuptial JittersDid gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia?

We can’t let our emotions and own prejudices to blind our reason, that’s why we are different than animals, because we can put stupidity aside and think clearly. No one can replace a life that has passed away. A parent who has buried a child probably never moves on from this loss. It’s a tragic loss and one that can be prevented. But having emotions cloud judgement can put more lives at risk. We also can’t deny basic human and civil rights to a group of people based on out-dated texts where we pick-and-chose what we like and what we don’t; especially when it is in a country where there’s separation of church-and-state. Religious groups can chose to prevent gay couples to wed in their congregation, is their right. However, they can’t prevent them from marrying at a city-hall or privately and said marriage be recognized by their city, their State and their government. The fight for gay marriage has been a heated one recently in the U.S. and there have been more setbacks than anything else. President Barack Obama has promised to repeal DOMA and promote UAFA, a bill that will allow U.S. citizens to sponsor their partners for immigration rights, but any progress by him has yet to be done. And I know what you’re all thinking by now: “If you like Europe that much, then move there.” Really, is that your smart comment? I guess the U.S. is in trouble.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Jess, Bend, Oregon, 2009

Photography by:  Jeff Sheng, Los Angeles

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Jess, Bend, Oregon, 2009 is a photograph by the award-winning Los Angeles photographer Jeff Sheng.  Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is his new photography project, which consists of a series of photographs of closeted men and women in the United States military. The photographs represent Sheng’s interest in the intersections between public and private spaces, and the government’s ever-intrusive policing of our most private spaces.

Please Share This:

I have an aversion to the holiday season. Guilty as charged. I dread annually the changing of the guard in retail from Halloween to Christmas, as it is the first real sign of the anguish that lies ahead.

To some, my repugnance of the joy of Christmas is beyond comprehension. For many, it is an eagerly anticipated time to spend with friends and family, to exchange gifts and get drunk and laugh and be thankful for all the ways in which the heavens have smiled upon them with good fortune. For others, Christmas is a harsh reminder of their shortcomings, and acts as a giant mirror to reflect back onto them all the things they wish they had or could have been.

For me, it is neither – but rather, is the one time annually where my normally buried weakness is subject to highly undesirable exposure. Ironic that the one week of the year that everybody is supposed to feel happy and loved, is the one week that I always feel most alone. And I get the distinct feeling that I’m not the only one.

Throughout the rest of the year, it’s easy to paint a picture different than what may lie underneath. You can submerge yourself in work, school, play – planning vacations or concert trips or casual sex – going to the gym, baking a cake or whatever the hell you want to fill your days with. However, when the snowflakes start to fall to the sleepy sound of Christmas carols, and the families gather ’round the fire and a cup of cheer, the absent aspects of your life become glaring obvious and impossible to ignore. Suddenly, that elephant you keep hidden in the closet all year round, comes barging on out, doused in gasoline and heads straight for the fire.

Suffice to say, I have never been in a relationship around Christmas or New Year’s Eve, this past holiday season excluded, even though by the time the season rolled around, it was pretty obvious that the road was coming to an end. I have yet to scream ‘Happy New Year’ and plant a kiss on the lips of somebody who makes me unconditionally happy. Someone who I could picture myself ringing in the next ten, twenty, thirty of more years with. There’s been nobody whom I would rather curl up in a blanket on the couch and hide from the snow with. There’s been no feeling of complete and total contentment with my love life and, by extension, with myself, around the holidays – and, as a change of pace from the rest of the year, these sentiments are able to be unwrapped without whacking first.

I think that Christmas will forever be the ultimate barometer for me and my relationships. There’s an old saying that sex is the gauge for what’s going on in a relationship, but let’s be realistic here – we have sex with strangers, so who are we to use sex as a judge of anything? No, for me, it’s the holiday season. if the weather outside is frightful, and yet you help make me feel less afraid – I think we could be onto something.

In a way, I guess I just find it a little backwards that the time of year when most people feel most complete and content, is the same span of time in which I feel the most incomplete and unremarkable. I keep busy otherwise, devoting my time to countless projects designed to not only entertain, but also to give myself amnesia when it comes to my loneliness, but when everyone around you is exploding with happiness out of every possible orifice, it becomes more than just a little difficult to casually brush it aside.

Perhaps, some day, I’ll develop the strength of character to successfully hide my feelings, even during Christmas. Or maybe, I’ll grow as a person to the point where I will no longer feel the inadequacies I presently undergo. Who knows, I could conceivably meet the perfect man for me with whom to pass the holidays in the bliss that the general populace and Hollywood have trained me to want for myself. But whatever the case may be, and under whatever circumstances, I just hope that the growth is positive, that I am stronger because of it, and for fuck’s sake, that there’s no mistletoe anywhere near this ho ho ho all fucking Christmas.

Ding, dong, merrily on high? A boy can only hope.

Sen. Chris Buttars

Apparently the LDS / Mormon Church supporting the Salt Lake City ordinances last week, banning discrimination against the LGBT (gay) community in matters of housing and employement, is the equivalent of a 500 lb loaf of pumpkin bread. Huh… maybe all I had to do was bake more?

In an unexpected announcement today, Utah State Senator Chris Buttars (R – West Jordan) announced that due to the LDS or Mormon Church’s statements this past week, he now supports fair workplace and housing laws for the LGBT community on a state level. “I agree with what the Church said,” Buttars told KUTV news, “that an individual should be able to have a roof over their head and have a job, and not worry about being fired..”

Buttars is of course known state-wide for his fierce opposition to anything that resembles gay rights, including his critical role in working to ban Gay-Straight Alliances in Utah schools. His fame reached national media attention this past year with his now infamous comments to director Reed Cowan for an interview in Cowans’ upcoming film Mormon Proposition, in which Buttars declares gay people to be “the biggest threat to America going down..”

Back in January of this year, I had a chance to speak with Senator Buttars at his home in a community-outreach effort with PRIDE In Your Community. During what has been called the “Pumpkin Bread Talks” Chris Buttars made it very clear that although he claimed to be sympathetic, he was in no way favoring supporting any rights for one of Utah’s minorities, including workplace and housing protections.

So why the sudden change of heart? Our illustrious Senator claims that it was the Mormon Church’s public statements, however inside sources have shed some light on some closed-door statements made by LDS Church officials, including the phrase “we’ve got him [Buttars] under control.”

KUTV’s interview with the Sentator concluded as you would expect, give-a-little, take-a-lot. While with the support of Chris Buttars, fair workplace and housing laws may very well pass the legislature this year, however he will also be pushing to make it illegal for any other city in Utah to pass anti-discrimination laws, everything else will be required to go through at a state level.

In an article from the Associated Press found on 365 Gay, it is reported that the Catholic church has threatened to abandon its contracts with the city, including those which serve 68,000 homeless people, unless the city changes  a proposal which would legalize same-sex marriage.

Typical Catholic church B.S., attempting to foist their beliefs on everyone via the government. And, when they fail, they abandon their stated core values (helping the poor, etc.) to make a political point. How compassionate. Those 68,000 people might die of hunger or freeze to death, but at least they do so knowing they are helping slow the spread of equality for gays.

This is the same thing that they did in Massachusetts in 2006 when they abandoned support of an adoption program because they refused to help same-sex couples adopt. I’m sure those kids are better off being shuffled through the foster care system rather than having a home with same-sex parents.

I’m sick of the church and its political machinations. They have an immense amount of wealth in literally treasure in the Vatican, yet that can’t be touched to help the poor. So, they get governments to tax the people for them (all of the people, not just Catholics) so that they can have access to vulnerable people and try to recruit “save” them.

I agree with the late Frank Zappa: Tax the churches. Tax the businesses owned by the churches.

Over the past couple of days, the blogosphere has been rife with commentary on 10-year old Will Phillips, the Arkansas boy who made national news by refusing to stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance until homosexuals are afforded the “right” to marry members of the same sex. To Phillips, there can be no “liberty and justice for all” in a country where sexism and racism exist.

He has been called “brave” by the Left. He has been lauded by gay rights groups as “truly courageous.” He is described as “precocious” by the salivating media. He is a hero to those who continue to view the United States as a bastion of repression and discrimination. He has been praised as having the fortitude to “stand up for what he believes in” – and to the American Leftocracy, there is nothing nobler.

But is that really true?

Is “standing up for what you believe in” the be-all, end-all barometer of honor and integrity?

What if Little Will from Arkansas stood up for white supremacy? Would he still be praised?

The act of “standing up for what one believes in” is, in and of itself, meaningless if the values behind it are no good.

Without rehashing everything Phillips said – and without specifically getting into the same-sex marriage debate – there are three points to be made here.

First, for all of his precociousness and expanded vocabulary, little Will is an enormously foolish and naive child – and no one is bothering to clue him in. (Ironically, his childlike idealism is on par with most adult leftist thought, so he is probably being looked upon as a prodigy of sorts, or a future Democrat Senator). That “liberty and justice for all” is not absolute in America doesn’t mean the ideal is not worth saluting. The United States is not a perfect society; and because imperfect human beings comprise that society, there can never be absolute anything for all citizens. If, in Will’s World, that’s what it takes to be able to say the Pledge, no one will ever be able to say it.

Indeed, “liberty and justice for all” is what America aspires to. It is her ideal. It is what the flag (and the republic for which it stands) represents. It is what men and women have sacrificed their lives to preserve. It is what America has overwhelmingly been able to live up to – certainly far more than any other society the world has ever known. But because there exists a federal government, there will always be some encroachments on liberty – like taxes, for instance.

The irony here is that while young Will ridicules America for not being able to provide “liberty for all,” his leftist agenda undoubtedly means he supports bigger, more intrusive government. Surely, someone as bright, articulate and thesaurus-savvy as he knows that the larger the government gets, the less liberty we the people have, by definition.

It would have been interesting to hear the young leftist’s response to that.

Meanwhile, justice, while blind in theory, will never be perfect in this, or any other, society. We strive to balance the scales as best we can in the pursuit of justice, but it isn’t always possible. Think O.J. Simpson.

Waiting for these “perfections” to manifest themselves until such a time when young Will believes the Pledge has become worthy enough to come from his lips is both supremely arrogant and intellectually dishonest.

(But he sounds so smart, bless his heart!)

Second, little Will is an unadulterated narcissistic spoiled brat – not because of his views, which he is entitled to, but because of his wanton disrespect for authority. During the interview with CNN’s John Roberts, he was asked what he said to his teacher following the “grief” he received for refusing to stand for the Pledge.

Said the young Phillips:

I, eventually, very solemnly, with a little bit of malice in my voice, said, “Ma’am, with all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge.”

Roberts, of course, giggled while the young scamp recounted his amusing encounter with the teacher. The boy’s Dad, who was sitting beside Will, put his head in his hands in playful embarrassment.

That this boy was not suspended for telling a teacher to “jump off a bridge” is bad enough. That his father was apparently unconcerned with such a blatant display of contempt for authority is even more disturbing. That his mother said she was proud of him is downright disgusting.

Perhaps someone ought to provide young Will with some pictures and accounts from societies where real oppression exists. Maybe someone ought to enlighten the young scholar as to the realities of slavery, ethnic cleansing and the denial of basic human rights that exist in abundance elsewhere in the world. Someone should probably explain to the young lawyer-wanna-be (that’s what he said he wants to be) that the United States has liberated more people than all other nations in the history of this planet combined.

Someone also ought to instill a bit of humility in this boy. I don’t care how many multi-syllabic words he can rattle off for the cameras, he is a bit too full of himself and too impressed with his own intelligence.

Couple that with his willful disregard of authority, and you’ve got a punk.

As God is my witness, if one my daughters stood up in class after deciding she did not want to sit through a showing of Al Gore’s mythological meterological romp, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and in the process told her teacher to “jump off a bridge,” I can assure you that punishment would be swift and severe.

That kind of insolence and disregard for authority is intolerable regardless of which side of ideological fence it comes from.

I guess it’s kind of “cute” coming from a liberal, but imagine for a moment if Will Phillips was a young conservative. The mainstream media would have split an artery. He’d have been crucified if he chose not to stand for the Pledge because of something Barack Obama did or said. (Of course, conservatives don’t think that way, but you get my point). Think of how the media lambasted Carrie Prejean when she stood up for traditional marriage.

Third, the Pledge of Allegiance does not dictate how someone should think on any given subject. It is not a pledge to conservatism. It is not a pledge to liberalism. It is a pledge to the nation that affords one to think as they so choose, regardless of their politics. Someone ought to remind the boy that the flag he has decided to shun honors everyone who gave up their lives for this country so that he might live free.

That he chooses to forego proclaiming his allegiance to his own country until it adheres to his view of how it should be is the very definition of narcissism.

I don’t support Barack Obama or his initiatives toward socialism, but I still pledge my allegiance to this nation.

I don’t believe Little Will should be made to say the Pledge if he doesn’t wish to. I find it abhorrent that he wouldn’t, but one ought not force anyone to say it.

But he damn well should.

There are millions and millions of dead military men and women who have earned the right to be shown that respect.

-