Tag Archives: Gay Marriage

News

Famous gay fashion designers express opposition to gay marriage

5 Comments

This is reported by Breitbart News.

Excerpt:

Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, founders of the eponymous fashion house, have come out strongly against gay marriage, the notion of gay families, and the use of surrogacy to procreate.
The billionaire pair, who used to be romantically linked, gave an interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, in which they said, “The only family is the traditional one. No chemical offspring and rented uterus. Life has a natural flow; there are things that cannot be changed.”

They also said, “Procreation must be an act of love.”

“I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Uteri for rent, semen chosen from a catalogue,” Dolce stated.

Gabanna said, “The family is not a fad. In it there is a supernatural sense of belonging.”

The pair have long been outspoken about gay marriage. In 2013, when the LondonTelegraph asked them if they had ever considered getting married, they answered, “What? Never!” Dolce said, “I’m a practicing Catholic.”

Gabbana told the Daily Mail in 2006, “I am opposed to the idea of a child growing up with two gay parents.”

LGBTNews in Italy is already calling for a boycott of Dolce and Gabbana.

It is not unusual for gay men in Europe to oppose gay marriage. In fact, a group of gay men in France, calling themselves Les Hommen, have been an ongoing feature of traditional marriage protests in France. Les Hommen invaded the French Open, stripped to the waist, with pro-marriage slogans written on their chests. Gay Star News suggested it was “the most homoerotic anti-gay protest ever.”

First Things has a quick review of their success story:

Domenico and Stefano were for years perhaps the globe’s most prominent gay power couple. In the tightly knit, family-based, quasi-aristocratic world of Italian fashion, these two men came from nowhere to make a name for themselves that the whole world would recognize. In a 2005 New Yorker article, John Seabrook marveled at their success:

Unlike the Guccis, Pradas, Puccis, Zegnas, Ferragamos, and Fendis, Dolce and Gabbana do not come from families with long pedigrees in the production and sale of luxury goods. . . . They began as outsiders, with their noses pressed to the windows of the fashion world. Their business and their distinctive style are based not so much on family history and artisanal traditions as on their relationship with each other. And the only reason that Dolce and Gabbana are creative and business partners at all is that they were romantic partners first.

The two men have long approached political orthodoxies with the same brashness and iconoclasm that guide their fashion sensibility. In 2006, Gabbana told the Daily Mail, “I am opposed to the idea of a child growing up with two gay parents.” Such statements have yet to affect Dolce & Gabbana’s business, but as gay rights make gains there is likely to be less freedom to speak for those who oppose them—even if those speaking are gay men.

Already the new interview has prompted opposition, with the website LGBT News Italia calling for a boycott like the one launched against Barilla pasta after its chairman made similar comments. I tend to loathe the sub-democratic habit of expressing political preferences through consumer choices, but it would be hard to object to the victory won for elegance if conservatives were to start wearing D&G in solidarity with these two brilliant, independent-minded Italians.

I just want to say that I have absolutely no problem with these two guys. I think they should be allowed to believe what they want, act how they want, speak how they want and even have private commitment ceremonies if they want. All I want from them is that I be allowed to say the same things that they say in public, and not face the wrath of the secular leftist state and their powerful LGBT allies. I would like to also have the freedom to not celebrate or endorse anything that gay people do in word or deed.

I hope that a lot of gay people like these two guys will speak out for freedom like this, and in favor of natural marriage and family. I don’t expect any gay people to endorse my sexual orientation, which is premarital chastity and postmarital exclusive fidelity. But I do expect them to tolerate me, just like these two guys seem to be able to do. I could probably be friends with these two guys, except that I don’t care about fashion. But on gay marriage, these two guys really get it, and they get it better than most Christians and conservatives. Is it that hard to make a simple defense of natural marriage? I think not.

News

Police will charge gay activist Adam Hoover with faking his own abduction

5 Comments

This was reported by NBC News.

They say:

A suburban Cincinnati gay rights activist was charged with a misdemeanor early Tuesday after police say he falsely claimed online that he was kidnapped and thrown in the trunk of his car, NBC affiliate WLWT reported. In a post on Facebook and Twitter just before 12:30 a.m. ET, Adam Hoover alerted his friends and followers that he was in danger. He said he was using social media instead of dialing 911 because he didn’t want to be heard.

“Please help me I’m in the trunk of my ford escort red 2000 gbh 2812,” the 20-year-old wrote. “They said they are going to kill my family please call 911 I don’t want them to hear me.” He included his mother’s phone number and his family’s address. “Please please call. I don’t want to die,” he added.

The plea for help spread quickly on social media and sparked an immediate search in the Cincinnati area. But after investigating, Green Township police and the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office believe the kidnapping was a hoax. Authorities discovered Hoover’s car abandoned on a highway near the Ohio-Indiana border, WLWT reported. He was seen coming out of a nearby home with police and was unharmed, according to the station. Police didn’t immediately release a motive for why Hoover allegedly faked his own abduction.

What was interesting about this story is that the local paper considered spiking the story rather than make this gay activist look bad.

Newsbusters explains:

In its two reports on the story Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, the Cincinnati Enquirer posted the following introductory note:

We decided to publish this story because it dealt with a prominent local figure who posted claims in a very public setting. We understand and respect Mr. Hoover’s privacy, but we also believe it’s important to cover public figures and events that potentially have an impact on public safety resources.

By indicating that a “decision to publish” was made, the Enquirer has undeniably and outrageously admitted that it considered not reporting the results of a story which had already gone viral. Why?

It would seem that a factor contributing to that reluctance is that Hoover, according to local TV station WLWT, “is a founder of Marriage Equality Ohio, which he helped create in 2010.” (The Enquirer’s Wednesday report says that”Hoover started working for Marriage Equality Ohio in 2011 and has done most of the promotion work for the organization since then.”)

Thus, there appear to have been discussions in the Enquirer newsroom about how reporting on Hoover might hurt his cause. It’s also reasonable to believe that the paper was pressured by outsiders and/or parent company Gannett to either not cover Hoover’s hoax or to downplay it as much as possible. The introductory note at its two stories comes off as a de facto “Sorry, we wish we could ignore this, but we can’t, so please-please-please don’t hate us for it” apology to those who would have wanted the story suppressed.

If there was pressure to downplay the story, those who exerted it appear to have gotten their way, as headlines relating to Hoover disappeared quite quickly from the Enquirer‘s home page.

It’s hard to imagine that the Enquirer would have been so deferential if the person faking his abduction had been an advocate on the other side of the same-sex “marriage” issue.

So the headlines eventually disappeared from their web site. Interesting.

You can read about more fake hate crimes against gays from Life Site News.

There was another story like this one in the news, recently. This one concerns Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning.

Excerpt:

“After carefully considering the recommendation that (hormone treatment) is medically appropriate and necessary, and weighing all associated safety and security risks presented, I approve adding (hormone treatment) to Inmate Manning’s treatment plan,” Col. Erica Nelson, the commandant of the Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks in Kansas, wrote in a Feb. 5 memo.

Formerly named Bradley Manning, the soldier was convicted of sending classified documents to anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Manning is serving a 35-year prison sentence and is eligible for parole in about seven years.

At Manning’s trial, her attorneys argued she had been disillusioned by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and believed the release of the documents, including diplomatic cables and military reports, should be seen by the public.

Manning sued the federal government for access to the treatment. The Army referred questions about Manning to the Department of Justice, which has been handling the case. Nicole Navas, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment, saying the government’s position is detailed in court filings.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Manning in the case, did not have an immediate comment on the Army’s memo.

Manning had asked for hormone therapy and to be able to live as a woman. Transgender individuals are not allowed to serve in the U.S. military and the Defense Department does not provide such treatment. The Department of Veterans Affairs, however, does provide the treatment for veterans.

That’s the same Department of Veterans Affairs that provides such poor care for veterans who actually fought in wars, rather than for people like Manning, who just gave away our military secrets. If the government is in control of health care, then the government gets to decide who gets treated. Their idea of who deserves health care might not be the same as the taxpayers who pay for it, but oh well.

Related posts

News

Barronelle Stutzman turns down deal from Washington attorney general

8 Comments

The attorney general offered her a lighter punishment in exchange for denying her Christian faith… and she surprised him by saying no.

Here is her full response:

Dear Mr. Ferguson,

Thank you for reaching out and making an offer to settle your case against me.

As you may imagine, it has been mentally and emotionally exhausting to be at the center of this controversy for nearly two years. I never imagined that using my God-given talents and abilities, and doing what I love to do for over three decades, would become illegal. Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences. Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.

Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.

I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process. Thanks again for writing and I hope you will consider my offer.

Sincerely,

Barronelle Stutzman

The attorney general is a Democrat, of course, and Washington is a very blue state. The whole case is troubling, but it’s really troubling that Stutzman is paying Ferguson’s salary through her taxes. She is paying him to do this to her. It’s always a scary thing to me when Christians have to have their consciences trampled at the hands of a government that they pay taxes to employ. I am sorry for Barronelle. I don’t think that she should have to celebrate something she disagrees with.

If there is one thing that troubles me about her statement, it’s that she cashes out her opposition to gay marriage in purely religious terms, and I think that’s not he right approach. The right approach is to talk about how children suffer when they are denied their mother or their father or both, how same-sex marriage undermines marital norms of exclusivity and permanence, how same-sex marriage undermines religious liberty, etc. But still, it’s important that she fight this and that everyone understands how same-sex marriage changes society.