DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL : A BAD ARGUMENT, AND AN EMBARRASSING DOUBLE STANDARD

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Last week, former Supreme Allied Commander (Atlantic) General John Sheehan testified before a Senate subcommittee investigating whether it was prudent to repeal the American military's ban on openly gay soldiers. General Sheehan argued that the military should not alter its policy. He said that openly gay soldiers reduce morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion.

To support his assertion, General Sheehan referenced an incident in which the Dutch army failed to defend a Bosnian town against Serbian aggression during Yugoslavia's Civil War in 1995. Although he could not directly attribute the Dutch army's failure to individual gay soldiers, General Sheehan explicitly said that Holland's "socialized" and "permissive" attitude toward homosexuality in the military made its armed forces "ill-equipped" to fight battles.

Dutch officials reacted with surprise to General Sheehan's remarks. They found it bizarre that anyone could link military ineffectiveness to a policy permitting openly gay men and women to serve in the military.

I find General Sheehan's argument bizarre, too. Moreover, I also find it foolish, hypocritical and ignorant. I have long criticized the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as reflecting a fundamental double standard. It not only assumes that abstract homosexuality makes a person a bad soldier. It also assumes that there are no gay people in the U.S. military. Anecdotal evidence suggests that homosexuality is rife in the armed forces. It's just that no one talks about it. And yet General Sheehan does not suggest that the U.S. military is "ineffective," even though it certainly has gay people in it. Policies do not change the way people are.

But these are not the only flaws in "don't ask, don't tell." Put simply, the entire policy functions on logically untenable premises. First, the policy purports to "strengthen morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion" by eliminating openly gay people from service in the ranks. The argument is that openly gay men might form emotional relationships with one another that could jeopardize a particular "mission." Morale and combat effectiveness, in turn, depend on the chain of command. Morale and combat effectiveness require unswerving loyalty to the chain of command. And if men develop romantic connections to one another, then perhaps they will be loyal to one another, not the chain of command. Thus, it is proper to exclude openly gay men from military service: Gay relationships threaten the chain of command because romantic connections switch loyalties from the mission to individual men.

But what about women? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy assumes that romantic connections are only dangerous to the "mission" when they exist between two men. Yet the military allows straight women to serve alongside straight men. Human beings will develop romantic connections with anyone to whom they feel attracted, no matter the gender. Straight men fall in love with straight women just as deeply as gay men fall in love with each other. In that light, the fact that the U.S. military permits straight women to serve with straight men poses the same theoretical danger to morale as allowing openly gay men to serve. Straight people develop romantic connections just like gay people. And according to the army's rationale for "don't ask, don't tell," romantic connections are "bad" because they divide loyalties. Apparently, however, love affairs between men and women in the army do not divide loyalties as strongly as love affairs between men.

This is just ignorant: If the problem is potential romantic connections between soldiers, then neither straight women nor gay men should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no qualitative difference between romantic connections among gay people versus straight people. According to the army's logic, such connections are equally "dangerous to morale" and "unit cohesion." The fact that the U.S. military presumes that gay relationships are somehow "more dangerous to morale" is logically untenable.

I can see no good reason to keep gays from the U.S. military beyond naked prejudice. The only thing that seems to support "don't ask, don't tell" is a historical animus directed from straight men against gay men. Straight men feel "weird" when they know they are sitting next to a gay man, so the policy aims to eliminate that awkwardness. Yet there is no principled reason for this. It functions on the bare assumption that "gay people are different" and therefore must be excluded. To quote Justice Stephen Breyer's observation from the oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 538 (2003)(the case striking down State gay sodomy laws), "don't ask, don't tell" invokes this reasoning: "I do not like thee, Doctor Fell; the reason why I cannot tell." Straight people in the army just plain don't like being around gay people. That's the only reason for the policy.

I also question the military's assumption that gay relationships could somehow damage unit effectiveness. Leaving to one side the consideration that thousands of gay people already serve in the military without saying so, divided loyalties dominate military service. Men (and women, too) form extraordinary bonds with one another under the stress of combat. Their camaraderie deepens from the moment they enter training to the toughest moments in battle. I have written that the military is inherently socialistic because it cares about its own people; and soldiers are also socialistic because they are all willing to die for their brothers. In fact, they are all willing to die helping to save their brothers, even if their actions "endanger the mission." Put simply, soldiers will always divide their loyalties because they care for each other, romance or not. Allowing openly gay people to serve in the army will not change all soldiers' natural commitments to each other.

Finally, General Sheehan implied that the mere presence of gay people in the Dutch army made it a poor fighting force. This is ridiculous. There is simply no historical correlation between homosexuality and military ineffectiveness. Alexander the Great, Peter the Great and Frederick the Great were all allegedly gay, yet they went down in history as model soldiers. To suggest that an aesthetic sexual taste for members of one's own sex somehow renders a person "effeminate, weak, womanly and unsoldierlike" is simply rank stereotyping. Although history has placed restrictions on the manner in which gay people express their sexuality, it is indisputable that they have served with distinction as soldiers, officers and even conquerors. In that light, General Sheehan's argument that "the presence of gay people" in the Dutch army made it "weak" ignores history.

In conclusion, there is no logical or historical reason to continue the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It makes pernicious assumptions about the relationship between sexuality and military competence. And it also functions on a double standard because another policy permits straight women to serve alongside straight men. The policy identifies "romantic connections between soldiers" as a reason to exclude openly gay men. Yet it allows straight women to potentially compromise straight men with "romantic connections:" "Romantic connections" are only dangerous among gay men, not straight men. The U.S. military offers no justification for the differential treatment. In that light, it is logically untenable. It simply reflects gross and outdated adolescent stereotypes. Romance is romance; it poses the same "dangers" whether it exists between boys and boys or boys and girls.

CELEBRATE BLACK HISTORY MONTH : DRINK HEINEKEN

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

You might think that title is a joke. It isn't: I actually saw it printed on a New York City bus.

I thought I had seen everything in advertising. I thought I had cataloged every species of commercial dishonesty. But I should never underestimate commercial speakers: Their innovation knows no bounds. They push the limits every time. And in cases like this, they push straight into the surreal.

What the fuck does Dutch beer have to do with African-American identity and history? How does Heineken in any way relate to the black experience in the United States? How does Heineken reflect this country's poisonous racial legacy, or in any way symbolize it? I have no doubt that many African-Americans like Heineken beer. But would an average black man in America instinctively associate Heineken with black issues?

I can understand associating George Washington Carver, Crispus Attucks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Scott Joplin or even Snoop Dogg with Black History Month. All those men achieved prominence in American life through the decades. But Heineken? Where was Heineken during the Freedom Marches? Where was Heineken during the Civil War and Reconstruction? And where the hell was Heineken during the L.A. race riots?

Heineken is not African-American. It is not even a person. It is a beer. What role could it possibly have played in a Nation's development?

To suggest that blacks should celebrate their history in the United States by breaking open a Heineken is just asinine. After all, it was a Dutch merchant who brought the first African slaves to Virginia in 1619. That's not to say that Heineken reflects modern Dutch views about slavery. But the fact remains that the Dutch played a very dark role in the history of American slavery. In that light, it is especially perverse to suggest blacks should celebrate their history by drinking Dutch beer.

Heineken's ad is not just historically incongruous. It also shows just how little taste--or sense--most advertisers bring to their work. In this case, the advertisers did not ponder the embarrassingly weak connection between African-American history and Heineken beer. No, they merely identified a potential market (i.e., African-Americans), then matched their product to an important month in the "African-American calendar." Perhaps Heineken intended to forge a mental link between "African-American pride" and Heineken. Perhaps they wished to dupe African-Americans into believing that Heineken played a substantial role in their history. Maybe Dr. Dre likes Heineken. Maybe Duke Ellington drank it after his shows in the 1940s. Who knows?

Heineken simply concluded that African-Americans represent a "market:" Namely, a discrete body of potential buyers and sellers at a particular time and place. Any advertising that incites a market to spend money on the advertiser's product is worth the price. It does not matter if the message is crass, off-color, inappropriate, incorrect, counterfactual, counterintuitive, silly, ridiculous or just wrong. Those concerns pale next to the advertiser's mandate to generate profits.

In the end, advertising is not about consistency. It is not about respect, either. Rather, it is about implanting mental connections so that people spend money. In advertising, facts need not be accurate. Indeed, facts are not even necessary at all.

And taste? That's the least concern. If taste mattered, what self-respecting student of American history would dare to assert that Heineken beer has anything to do with the plight of African-Americans in this country? The thought is almost too embarrassing to entertain.

But that didn't stop Heineken from entertaining it. There is no shame--or dignity--in commerce.

That's another reason I'm not good at it. Damned ethics!

RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE GET HEALTH INSURANCE ; IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE GET SICK, DIE AND DESERVE IT

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Ms. Deborah G. Cunningham, M.S. (Bakery Management), B.S (Health Care Billing Systems) (Technical College of Southwest Texas at Pedejo Gulch); Senior Policy Advisor, The Institute for Increased Family Responsibility, Dallas, Texas; Mother of Four; President & Rally Coordinator, Southwest Texans United for More Bush (2008 Campaign).

Europeans commonly criticize our country because we do not provide basic health coverage to our citizens. Rather, they say, we leave our citizens dangerously underprotected because we require them to make their own choices concerning health coverage. According to these critics, many well-meaning people cannot compete in the private insurance market, leaving them open to preventable illness and death. They also say that it is unfair to peg health coverage on employment, since very many people have difficulty finding jobs, and even if they do, many employers do not even provide health coverage. In sum, these Europeans call us “inhumane free marketeers” who commit moral transgressions against our own people. They say we have no qualms about allowing our most vulnerable citizens to go without health coverage simply because they are not “responsible” enough to get insurance.

We have a simple response to these criticisms: We believe in responsibility. In America, we do not look to the government to tie our shoes or pay for diapers. Rather, we are rugged individuals. We take life by the horns and get things done with our own two hands. Responsibility is a lifestyle. It means knowing who you are and what you are supposed to do in life. It means you understand who employs you and what they expect. It means you understand that you’re running the show, not your mommy, daddy or the government. Responsible people buy health insurance; that is what they are supposed to do. Responsible people are also supposed to find a job, show up at work and shut up. They do not sit around and whine about life or health insurance. They go out, look for competitive prices, compare options and make informed, reasonable purchases. Health insurance is like any other commodity. And in America, responsible people do not need the government to tell them what to buy. We do not live in a central African thuggocracy; no one tells us what to do.

We have no moral obligation to people who are too irresponsible to buy their own health insurance. Contrary to the European view, we do not feel collective shame that some people have access to top-notch medical care in our society, while others have none. Uninsured people cause their own predicament. We cannot feel shame or compassion for people who could have gotten a job, saved money and purchased an affordable health insurance policy. Nobody stopped them from buying coverage; they chose not to buy it and now they must live with the consequences. Responsible people look to their own needs and make purchases to suit those needs. Irresponsible people try to slide by and let others pick up the tab. In our view, we cannot feel compassion for people who try to foist the bill on hard-working, responsible Americans. What message would that send? What incentive would it provide for responsible people to work hard, get a job, be responsible and make informed economic decisions if they had to indemnify irresponsible people? In that situation, irresponsibility would triumph over responsibility. As a Nation, that would set a horrific precedent. That is why we feel no remorse for allowing uninsured people to go without care. Responsibility should bring rewards, not liabilities. By contrast, irresponsibility should bring suffering.

Uninsured people love to complain. They say they want to be responsible, but there is just no way for them to pay for health insurance. They say it is too expensive. They say that insurance companies refuse to cover them. They say they have untreatable conditions. They say they work at jobs that do not provide health coverage. They say they have too many other expenses to afford another major monthly bill. They say they are in debt. They say they do have insurance, but a loophole prevents them from being reimbursed for some arcane treatment. In essence, this is irresponsibility. Responsible people do not make excuses; they stoically accept the consequences of their own bad decisions and carry on. If these whiners really wanted to get health insurance, they could have bought it. They could have asked their parents for some help. They could have gotten loans from financial institutions. They could have sold their car. They could have mortgaged their room. Their own laziness prevented them from getting insurance, not “impossible circumstances.” Health insurance is not expensive. Healthy, working Americans can get excellent coverage for less than $1,000 per month. That is not a significant expense for a responsible, working person. And we have a simple lesson for the uninsured: If you feel you can’t afford health coverage, try trimming some luxuries. Don’t live beyond your means. First things first. Get insurance. Don’t buy televisions, video game consoles and cars. When you say that you can’t afford insurance, you just don’t want to give up your television, Friday night beer binges and movie nights, do you? If you were responsible, you would never have landed in this spot in the first place.

We believe that uninsured people are irresponsible. Irresponsible people provide minimal value to our society. To that extent, we believe that it is good to allow them to get sick without treatment. If irresponsible people die, what difference does it make? What do we lose? Nothing. On the other hand, responsible people obtain health insurance. They are worth protecting. When a responsible person gets sick, he goes to the doctor and receives care. It would harm our society if responsible people go without care or die. To that extent, health insurance protects responsibility and preserves responsible people. At the same time, it punishes irresponsibility. Irresponsible people do not obtain insurance. If they get sick and die, we lose nothing as a society. What do we lose when an unemployed, libertine, selfish money leech gets cancer and can’t receive care at a good hospital? Responsible people earn what belongs to them. We have no problem allowing an irresponsible person to suffer for his own bad choices. We do not give benefits to people who do not earn them. Irresponsibility is bad for society. Our private health insurance system provides an admirable way to punish it. In short, we believe that responsible people are worth saving. Irresponsible people are not. Although idlers and beggars may escape God’s justice on earth, our private health insurance system provides a fitting, secular replacement.

Europeans, especially the Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians and English, find these sentiments revolting. They think it is an international disgrace that we allow so many people to live their lives without health coverage. They say everyone should be entitled to some basic medical care at State expense. On this point, we interpose a fundamental objection: We do not believe in government entitlements. We believe in minimal government. Entitlements expand government. In America, citizens are entitled to two government functions: (1) Paying taxes; and (2) Imprisonment or death at a State institution for committing crimes. Those are the only things Americans may rightly expect from government. For everything else, they have their own responsibilities. Government does not tie our shoes in this country. Rather, it provides a free framework in which private individuals may establish their own rules according to contract law. Private enterprise made this country, and it will sustain this country. Private health insurance is just another example of robust private enterprise. Responsibility makes our system work. Entitlements weaken responsibility. That is why we do not entitle our citizens to anything except taxes, imprisonment and death. They must be responsible or suffer the consequences.

Private enterprise and responsibility bring many rewards. They make our medical community stronger than any other on earth. American doctors and pharmaceutical chemists offer the most effective treatments for every possible disease, precisely because they know the government will not plunder their earnings. American medical science performs miracles every day because we pay our doctors what they deserve. But we would not encourage future miracles if doctors performed miracles for irresponsible people. Only those with qualified, paid-up health insurance may receive revolutionary medical treatment in this country. If an irresponsible person has a rare kidney disease and no insurance, he will not receive life-saving treatment. In this way, our society rewards responsibility and punishes irresponsibility. So far, it has worked extremely well. After all, who really remembers irresponsible people who die? No one. Yet we remember the medical miracles performed upon responsible people, because responsible people are worth saving. Thankfully, medical science receives just pay when it saves responsible people. If medical science cared for everyone equally, it would receive no pay. And who would want to be a doctor or pharmaceutical chemist without pay? If we allow government to pay pennies for medical science, we will drive away our greatest medical talents. Doctors are private commercial actors in a free market system, not saints or shamans. They expect high pay, and only our private enterprise system can provide them the pay they deserve. Put simply, irresponsible people do not pay their doctors. They do not deserve medical miracles. In America, only paying customers have a right to demand services. Medicine is no exception.

In sum, we do not feel the least bit bad about health insurance in America. Health insurance companies help our country. They advance medical science and make medical miracles possible. They allow Americans to receive swift, effective medical care. By contrast, Europeans and Canadians—who do not pay for private health insurance—die like flies in hospital waiting rooms because it takes 17-24 weeks to receive emergency treatment. For discretionary procedures, it takes even longer to receive necessary care. Additionally, socialized medical systems do not use anesthesia or sterile operating tools. Rather, they use stone bludgeons and garden clippers. Worse, doctors in these systems earn less than nightclub bartenders. This is the price of irresponsibility. Yet in America, responsible patients face no such dangers. Our private health system provides compassionate, timely and technologically advanced care for responsible customers. It is not difficult to obtain access to these wonders. One must merely pay a monthly health insurance premium and meet the insurer’s insurability qualifications, subject to all relevant contractual exclusions.

Responsibility is the best policy. We applaud our health system because it reinforces responsibility in America. We squarely reject all European reasoning about morality, ethics, compassion, entitlement and “State obligation” in health care questions. When it comes to responsibility, we trust the American people. They know what they owe. They know what they are supposed to do. They know their bosses. They do not wait for handouts, nor do they complain about their self-inflicted misfortunes. They grit their teeth, work through adversity and somehow carry on. In a word, it is not impossible to get health insurance in America. Anyone can buy it as long as they have the money. And anyone can get it through an employer if they have the strength, dedication and zeal to get a job. Even in tough times like these, Americans always find a way—a responsible way.

That is what makes us different than Europeans. We live responsibly. We look to ourselves and we look the other way when irresponsible people suffer. We do not feel shameful; we just get back up, go to work and pay our health premiums. Irresponsibility is not our problem. We are not here to help others. We are here to be responsible. You can be responsible, too. Don’t complain. Just get up, get out there and do it.

EMPLOYEEBUILDER®

Boot-It-Up-Fast Software Manufacturing Associates, Ltd.
“Let’s Make a Difference™”
3412 Great Lakes Boulevard
Barrington, IL 60001

Dear Mr. Halbrooke,

You recently inquired about employment positions currently available through Boot-It-Up-Fast Software Manufacturing Associates, Ltd. (“BIUF” or “Buff” as we like to call ourselves.) As you know, BIUF is a leading information technology outfit with offices in six major markets from coast to coast. We also maintain strong foreign sales. We lead the way in data facilitation services at all industry expos. Our design team, sales staff, development professionals and corporate leadership all take our motto seriously: “Let’s Make a Difference™.” Over the last two years, our annual revenues have increased from $450 million to $540 million. There is no reason to think that our upward arc will flatten.

At BIUF, we believe great products and great people mean great success. We also recognize that it is hard to find great people. The spirit of American business success is teamwork. Recognizing that, we look for strong team spirit in our potential employees. Everyone has a rank and position at BIUF. We have Second Deputy Design Project Assistants, Third Responsible Accounting Bureau Directors and First Reporting Secretarial Services Delivery Coordination Supervisors. No matter where you work at BIUF, you know your place and you play your position. We like to look at ourselves like a winning football team. And great football teams are composed of people who know what job they do: Quarterbacks don’t punt, and linebackers don’t throw.

You also inquired about pay and benefits packages at BIUF. In response to your questions, we pay all our employees in a competitive manner consistent with comparable industry norms. Our benefits package is also consistent with comparable industry norms. We understand that the only way to attract strong talent to BIUF is to offer competitive pay, and that is what we do. But we must point out that we live in changing times. In these days of financial crisis, employees can no longer insist on burdensome benefits and pay perks. Our employees understand that the company comes before their own well-being. They are grateful simply to be working. If they make a little less money, they make up for it with the inward satisfaction that they are playing on a team. And the team is winning.

You went on to ask whether BIUF pays overtimes wages. Yes, BIUF pays overtime wages—IN HELL. We expect all our employees to work overtime as a matter of course. We do not provide extra compensation simply because an employee works beyond traditional hours. As mentioned, we live in changing times. No company can succeed if its employees work only 8 hours per day. Team players balance their lives for the win. They put in the extra four evening hours when they have to. They do this to keep their jobs. They do this to advance the company’s interests. They do not gripe for extra money when they sacrifice family time. They know that no other company pays overtime wages, so they move forward with BIUF. A simple fact explains this: It is 2008; everyone works overtime. Overtime is the new 9-5. Why should you get extra money for working a regular day?

In olden days, federal law mandated that employees earn time-and-a-half for every hour worked beyond forty hours per week. But that law dates from 1937. It is 2008. Our economy has changed out of all recognition since that bygone era, and it does not make prudent business sense to follow an ancient law. Furthermore, mandatory overtime pay would reduce annual profits by up to 10%. That represents a crushing expense. Good businesses control costs; they do not let them run wild. Overtime is an antiquated entitlement. Workers need to adjust to the 21st Century. They need to understand that there is not as much money to go around as there used to be. And to stay competitive, businesses require more work, not less. Forcing businesses to overcompensate for every hour over forty would plunge them into financial ruin. If you don't want overtime, take a less challenging career: I hear that Burger King® is looking for managers.

You also inquired whether BIUF offers at least four weeks’ paid vacation. In response, we say that BIUF offers plenty of vacation time—MY ASS. At BIUF, we grant our employees 10 paid days off per calendar year. This is the minimum allowable under applicable law, and if it were up to us, we would not grant any days off. No one wins when employees go off on paid gallivants. BIUF maximizes production when employees are at their desks working, not when they are chasing Mexican prostitutes in Cancun. BIUF maintains its industry leadership when employees show up and run software protocols, not when they traipse off to Miami to drink pina coladas and sing karaoke with friends. We believe that 10 days off per calendar year is more than sufficient to allow time for family events, dentists’ appointments, “emergencies,” children’s school plays, deaths, illnesses, catastrophes and mental health maintenance. Anything more would gravely impact BIUF’s profit margins. Four weeks’ paid vacation? What do you think this is? Holland? We venture here to say that good American employees do not want time off. They remember who pays them and they gratefully do their jobs—without getting tired.

Lastly, you asked whether BIUF provides group health insurance. Yes, BIUF provides group health insurance—YOU THOUGHT. Again, you assume that BIUF adopts mid-20th Century business practices. We must say again: It is 2008. Companies simply cannot afford to pay monstrous insurance premiums for thousands of employees anymore. If BIUF had to indemnify its workers’ health, we would be lucky to maintain double-digit annual profit growth. Beyond that, it is not a modern company’s responsibility to insure employee health. This is not a risk BIUF should bear. Rather, employees must bear the risk of ill health. They are adults. They can do their own insurance shopping. They should be happy just to have a job in this economy, not whimper about minimal benefits. If an employee gets sick and misses work, he will be fired. That’s how the ball bounces. If he doesn’t have insurance, so what? What does that have to do with BIUF? He should have thought ahead.

In conclusion, we welcome your application to BIUF. We must observe, however, that your inquiries have set you out on the wrong foot. We have a feeling that you expect far too much grace from your employer. We also sense that you do not possess the selfless team spirit necessary to excel in our organization. Rather, it seems that you want overtime wages, vacation time and health insurance. Good employees do not complain; they do their jobs, smile and go home when we tell them to. We have a feeling that you will play ball only for yourself. We have a feeling that you will resent working on Sunday evenings. In 2008, employees need to remember that they are servants first, and individuals last. If you want a wage, you need to adjust your thinking. It is not about you anymore. It may have been about you in 1937, but it is 2008. Now, the man who pays the shekel calls the tune. You better play it the way we want, or no shekel for you.

Thank you for your interest in Boot-It-Up-Fast Software Manufacturing Associates, Ltd. Good luck on your job search.

Sincerely,

Theodore F. Stingeford
Senior Placement Director and Third Subordinate Employee Benefits Coordinator

WINNING THE WAR ON GAY MARRIAGE : THE FINAL BATTLE

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Msgr. Ezekiel H. Worth, Director of Moral Arguments, Save the Family Institute

Last week, America committed a grave error by electing Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States. The liberal news media continues to gloat as it foreshadows a whole new era of vice, wickedness and moral license in America. Obama won because his opponent, John McCain, did not focus attention on the most important issue in America today: The fight against gay marriage. George W. Bush knew better in 2004. Rather than wasting time squabbling about economic problems and military deployment in Iraq, President Bush knew Americans wanted to stop gay marriage. And that’s how he beat John Kerry. McCain thought America wanted a solution to the financial crisis on Wall Street and a new energy policy. He thought wrong. Americans want only one thing: To stop the homosexual menace and to save the children.

Despite America’s colossal blunder on Election Day, voters in California achieved a notable victory: They unequivocally invalidated gay marriage in their State. In recent years, arrogant judges in States from Nebraska to Massachusetts have waged war on American values by “discovering” constitutional rights to “gay marriage.” These judicial terrorists have done violence to the American people. They have ignored American values and American morals. Worse, they have created a decadent moral climate that has emboldened homosexual infiltrators and suffocated American families. But on Election Day, voters in California spoke out to stop the terror. They said “NO” to gay marriage and the horrors it brings. We salute them for their refusal to surrender to the homosexual juggernaut.

Why is it so important to stop gay marriage? Simple: Because gay marriage obliterates families. Families begin with a single man and single woman. Men and women bear and beget children. Men and women make commitments to each other. Men and women love their children. Only men and women can teach virtue and good. And only children raised with mothers and fathers can develop into productive American citizens. Gay marriage destroys this dynamic. By destroying families, gay marriage eradicates the very foundation of our civilization. Without families, children will not develop properly. They will turn into thieves, drug addicts, murderers, cheaters, liars and thugs. They will grow into criminals, idlers and godless pleasure-seekers. Is it not obvious that we must act quickly to protect families? Although California understood the threat, we believe it is important to set forth detailed reasons why gay marriage must be stopped.

By allowing a man to marry a man, men will no longer marry women. This is a frightening truth. In one fell swoop, all normal marriage will be destroyed. Additionally, when a man marries a man, all existing marriages will mean nothing. Several prominent social scientists have proven that this will happen. They call it the “atomic reaction.” When homosexuals marry, all other marriages are immediately destroyed, as if in an atomic blast. Consider how destructive this is. Without marriage, men and women cannot raise children. Without a stable relationship in which to raise children, the entire fabric of our Nation will disintegrate. Put simply, homosexuals cannot be allowed to marry. If they do, men will no longer be able to marry women, and existing marriages will collapse overnight.

Homosexuals are deviant, unnatural, noncommittal, immoral, vain, crude, brutal, conniving, violent, lustful, cruel, disingenuous, dishonest, savage, insensate, animalistic and unscrupulous. Men have known this for generations. The Scripture rebukes: “Men [who] left natural sexual intercourse with women…[and who] were inflamed with lust with one another…God delivered them over to a worthless mind to do what it is wrong. They are filled with all unrighteousness, evil, greed and wickedness. They are full of envy, murder, disputes, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving and unmerciful. Although they know full well God’s just sentence—that those who practice such things deserve to die—they not only do them, but even applaud others who practice them.” Romans Ch. 1:27-32. This is the Word of God. How can any relationship between two such men result in anything other than wickedness? After all, Jesus said: “A good tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.” Matthew Ch. 7:18. Worse, how can we allow innocent children to fall into the hands of such villains?

Homosexual relationships are fundamentally illegitimate because homosexuals are evil. When the law recognizes gay marriage, it winks to evil. Our Nation cannot tolerate this. Not only does gay marriage destroy existing marriages, but it also plunges the entire country into moral wretchedness. By allowing even one gay marriage, the State conspires with evil.

State apologists say they allow gay marriage because they wish to “protect the dignity and rights of all its citizens.” Equality is a fine principle, but not when it threatens families. Furthermore, not every citizen can or should have equal rights. Indeed, not all citizens can vote. Convicted felons—who grossly deviate from societal norms—forfeit many rights. Our society rightly believes that certain blameworthy citizens are not worthy to enjoy the full benefits of citizenship. Homosexuals, too, grossly deviate from societal norms. In fact, they are intrinsically evil and spread pestilence wherever they go. They are 450 times more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals. Thus, it should not trouble us to withhold from them certain rights. Those who deviate from normal behavior have no claim to every privilege in our State. Homosexuals—who in a sense are worse than convicted felons because they are evil by nature—cannot complain that they may not marry. While our State and Federal Constitutions may promise “Equal Protection of the law,” that simply means that two similar people must be treated the same. But a homosexual is not similar to a normal person. For that reason, there is nothing constitutionally impermissible about denying a legal advantage to a homosexual. He is not in the category entitled to “equal protection.” Thus, the law may treat him differently.

Gay marriage is wrong. It is enough to say that homosexuals are evil and that marriages between men will destroy marriages between men and women. But there are other, more practical reasons that should persuade even the most skeptical reader that gay marriage must be stopped at all costs. First, when we alter marriage, we open a Pandora’s box. If gay marriage is allowed, what is next? Ten-person marriages? Man-goat marriages? There is no logical stopping point to the madness that gay marriage unlocks. By allowing gay marriage, we undermine the most sacred relationship in Western civilization. And once we allow it, we will inevitably be forced to recognize ever more ludicrous relationships. Some may scoff at this assertion. But what about the children? It is bad enough that children may have to live in an evil gay household. Yet once the marriage wall falls, children may have to live in man-goat households. This should shock us. We must take a stand against gay marriage now, before men begin marrying farm animals and raising children with hogs.

Second, gay marriage causes men and women to divorce. This is verifiable. Since States have allowed limited unions between homosexuals, divorce rates between men and women have reached an all-time high. Why? Because homosexuals are marrying. The mere sight of two men at a wedding has caused countless normal couples to give up on their sacred commitment. Divorce leads to fornication and child abandonment. These are both dire alternatives. To prevent these problems, we must act to stop divorce. We can stop divorce by banning gay marriage. Thus, by banning gay marriage, we keep men and women together and we help the children. Men and women love their children. They do not abandon their children unless gays marry.

Third, allowing gay marriage endorses frivolity in romantic life. In days past, men and women solemnly took an oath to stand by one another for all their days, in sickness and in health. These are stern commitments. Those commitments created a stable, loving environment in which to bear and raise children. Homosexuals, on the other hand, do not know what it means to commit to anything. They are scatterbrained, frivolous, undisciplined and vacillating. Oaths mean nothing to them. Only men and women can take an oath seriously. Homosexuals say one thing and do another. Such attitudes are incompatible with good family virtues. Worse, such attitudes should never be taught to children. Yet gay marriage allows such virtues to pass unchecked to children. Consider the danger this poses to future generations: The entire population will be noncommittal, vain, unreliable and untrustworthy. Only traditional marriage can fortify the spirit of honor and commitment that makes this country great. Men and women are not frivolous. They live honorably and tell the truth. By allowing gay marriage, however, honor, trust and dignity will be destroyed for all time.

Fourth, gay marriage will put an intolerable burden on the Federal social security system. Today, the system can barely pay for widowed dependents. By allowing gay marriage, an entire new class of married dependents will suddenly materialize overnight. This will dramatically increase the government’s social security liability. This, in turn, will lead to higher taxes, fewer jobs and reduced economic growth. Gay marriage, then, poses a grave economic threat. By banning gay marriage, we will save the country not only from moral, but also financial ruin.

These reasons should suffice to convince anyone that gay marriage is the most crucial issue facing the Nation today. With an avowed liberal like Barack Hussein Obama in the White House, we truly fear for the future. As a black man, he all too readily sympathizes with the erroneous rhetoric of the civil rights movement. He readily compares the “quest” of homosexuals for equality to the “quest” of black Americans for equality. He believes that homosexuals have rights under the law and the Constitution. He will press these dangerous ideas during his time in office. In so doing, he will make war on American families.

We can only hope that wisdom will prevail in the dark years ahead. We must continue the war against gay marriage. It is a war we cannot afford to lose. It is a war against evil. It is a war for our children. If you care about commitment, you will take up arms with us. If you care about social security, you will take up arms with us. If you care about the Holy Scripture, you will take up arms with us. If you refuse to allow America to follow in the footsteps of Holland and Belgium, you will take up arms with us. If you refuse to allow man-goat relationships, you will take up arms with us. In a word, we must rise up against the homosexual menace. We will not allow President “Hussein” Obama to wage war on American families. We trust that Americans will soon awaken from their moral slumber to stop homosexual terror. The American people will never surrender to the malicious gay hordes. They will take up arms and revolt.

It is time for a Second American Revolution against the homosexual tyrants and their elitist Ivy-League bankrollers—and we will win.

THE DUTCH ARE DANGEROUS

By : Mr. Lindsey Graham, United States Senator (R-SC)

I have dedicated my life to American families and American values. I have always loved America. And the more I learn about foreign countries, the more I love my native land. In fact, during my tenure as United States Senator from South Carolina, I have learned one thing: Foreign countries are not the same as the United States. Put simply, most countries—especially Western European countries—conduct policy in a way that should shock every American.

Today I want to speak about Holland. Holland—or “The Netherlands” as it is also known…don’t ask me why—is a country in northwestern Europe on the North Sea. Most of the country is below sea level, so they also call it the “Low Country.” People from Holland are called “Dutchmen” or “the Dutch.” They speak an odd-sounding language called “Dutch.” Some people have told me that it is similar to English. If you ask me, it sounds like pig Latin. After all, if it isn’t English, it’s all Greek to me. Thankfully a lot of Dutch people speak English, so if you ever find yourself in Holland, chances are you will be able to communicate with the locals.

But you would not want to find yourself in Holland because the Dutch are dangerous. Dutch people and the Dutch government conduct business in a way that should shock every American. In Holland, there is no death penalty. They imprison murderous thieves and rapists for no longer than 20 years. Thugs get away with probation and “psychoanalysis.” And Dutch prisons are clean, humane and well-funded. Dutch criminals have access to literature, television, computers and mattresses. These are not American ideals. In America, we execute criminals. If we don’t, we put them in prisons for as long as we possibly can. Criminals should be punished, not sent to a comfortable retreat. Every moment in prison should inflict pain. Yet the Dutch believe that the sentence punishes, not the prison time. This is absurd.

In Holland, government operates under this principle: “In all things, respect human dignity.” This is ridiculous. In America, only some people deserve dignity. You have to earn respect; we don’t give things away for free. Yet this is exactly what the Dutch do. They give things to their people for free. In Holland, health care is available at no charge to every citizen. If a beggar contracts HIV, he has a right to all medications at State expense. He has a right to stay at a hospital for free. Can you believe this? It is simply incomprehensible to the American mind. Here, if a beggar can’t afford HIV medication or a hospital stay, that is his problem. The State did not give him HIV, so why should the State pay to treat him? By dedicating themselves to “human dignity,” the Dutch have dedicated themselves to irrationality. And by paying for everyone’s health care, the Dutch encourage irresponsibility in their citizens. America never does that. We believe in responsibility, even if it leads to our deaths.

There is no morality in Holland because the Dutch have no respect for human life. They allow abortion and—worse—they allow doctors to poison terminally-ill people. In other words, the Dutch allow murder. How can a Nation claim to be moral when it allows citizens to intentionally kill one another? In America, we punish killers, no matter how they kill. True, we do not punish people who kill trespassers on their land, and we do not punish people who kill those who are about to kill them, but in all other instances, we punish killers. It does not matter if the victim wants to die. It does not matter if the victim will die a slow, agonizing death otherwise. God decides when a person dies or lives; human beings cannot intervene. In America, if God ordains that we suffer unto death, then suffer we must. Compassion for a suffering relative does not entitle us—contrary to the Dutch belief—to kill our relatives. In a word, the Dutch are remorseless, coldhearted killers. They snuff out unborn human life. Later, they take it before God wills. This should shock every American, because Americans believe in life.

Holland’s moral decay runs deeper. In Amsterdam, drug use is legal. The Dutch actually allow their citizens to consume prohibited substances. What kind of message does this send to the children? Drugs are wrong. If the law allows drugs, it fosters evil in the population. I have served my entire career in the Senate to protect children. The fact that the Dutch permit drug use runs contrary to my entire life’s work. Marijuana, hashish, cocaine and “magic mushrooms” destroy our youth. Yet the Dutch allow these deadly substances to freely corrupt the population. The Dutch call it freedom. I call it illegal behavior. Americans do not use drugs.

In Holland, government allows virtually any immigrant to cross its borders. The Dutch believe that immigrants should be treated with respect and dignity. They even provide immigrants with health care, housing, education and free money. In America, we detest immigrants. We jealously guard our national treasure; we do not carelessly dispense it to every Mexican wetback who climbs over a fence into Texas. Here, we do not respect immigrants; we hunt them down and deport them. In most cases, immigrants are Spanish-speaking lawbreakers. They are renegados and banditos who want to hijack America’s bounty. Yet the Dutch actually embrace immigrants. This is foolhardy and outrageous. And they actually give immigrants free housing. In America, no one has a right to free housing, citizen or not. This is the meaning of responsibility—and we make no exceptions.

We need to send a strong message to Holland: “We think you are dangerous. Keep your ideas out of America.” Holland is un-American. It is a dangerous foreign country. You can rest assured that, as United States Senator, I will do all I can to curb Dutch influence in our government. We need to keep America American. If we start following Dutch examples, our Nation will surely collapse. To avoid this fate, do not travel to Holland. If Dutch people visit the United States, refuse to speak to them. If they persist, tell them: “We do not need your dangerous ideas here. We believe in freedom, but we have our own ways of doing things in this country.” Tell them that our principle is not human dignity. Tell them our principle is industry, responsibility and morality. Tell them we do not murder people, born or unborn. Tell them that we do not give things away for free. Tell them that we pay for housing. Tell them we do not respect criminals; we execute them. And tell them we do not do drugs or tolerate stinking immigrants draining our national resources.

This is the land of the free. I have lived my life serving this country. And I am not about to let the Dutch destroy it.