A lie in Massachusetts

I'm shocked that the Concord Monitor chose to publish David Testerman's letter, "Homosexual agenda puts our values at stake". I'm always shocked when a paper publishes as an "opinion" piece something that is full of factual errors. To say "I believe gay people are immoral" is an opinion; specific claims about specific events that happened in a specific place are either facts or falsehoods.

I'm also tired of hearing about the Homosexual Agenda. The planning committee is still working on it, and we're stuck on whether we want to ask for pink triangle lanes at the supermarket or pink triangle parking spaces at the hair salon.

Mr. Testerman writes:

Homosexual activists have laid out a thorough plan to gain acceptance of homosexual behavior in America

Oh, darn it, and they forgot to invite me to the planning meeting again!

We all have seen what this 1 percent to 2 percent of our population has done to destroy the fabric of our country.

Yup, we have. Absolutely nothing at all.

A late-stage step in that plan is legislation that would create stiffer penalties for crimes against those who identified themselves as homosexual than against other citizens.

Where do they make this nonsense up? I've never met or even heard of a gay person demanding such an outrageous thing. What many gay people (and not all) do ask for is laws to create stiffer penalties for crimes in which the criminal has made clear their belief that the victim is gay and that they are committing the crime because of this belief. Such laws protect not only gay people, but also straight people who are incorrectly perceived to be gay. And, they are not applicable in cases where the victim is gay but the criminal did not know or perceive the fact, or in cases in which the victim is gay and the criminal did know but the fact was not related to their decision to commit the crime. Indeed, hate crime laws are difficult to apply to most cases, because unless the criminal specifically says something to indicate that hate was their motivation for committing the crime, there is usually no evidence to indicate that it was in fact a hate crime.

Mr. Testerman continues:

It has already happened in the United States, where local hate-crime laws have been enacted. In Philadelphia, Christians ranging in age from 17 to 72 were arrested and jailed for singing hymns and carrying signs encouraging homosexuals to repent.

I don't know if Mr. Testerman is ignorant of the facts or is deliberately lying, but his statement is untrue. What actually happened is that a group of people who claim to be Christian were arrested and jailed because they invaded a gay rights event (which had a lawfully issued permit to parade and assemble in a public place) without a permit and loudly attempted to disrupt the gay rights event, and then refused to leave when asked to. So, these supposed Christians walked into what legally amounts to being a private party and made a point to be as loud and annoying as possible, and then refused to leave... and they have the gall to try to make it look like it's the gay people's fault that they were arrested?

Mr. Testerman writes:

House Resolution 254 establishes a federal hate-crime law. It creates special protection and stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by someone's actual or perceived "sexual orientation." The law does not, in itself, criminalize speech against homosexual behavior.

That's correct. Remember that.

But it will open the door to criminalization of speech.

Last I checked, criminalization of speech was still prohibited by both state and federal constitutions in the United States, and no law passed by congress can change that fact. I consequently conclude that Mr. Testerman is either ignorant of this basic aspect of how our government works, or is trying to whip up hysteria to get people to act against laws protecting innocent people.

Scottish Catholic Adoption

Scotland is preparing to implement law which will ban discrimination against gay people in provision of goods or services. The Catholic church is upset because this will ban them from discriminating in the adoption services they provide on behalf of the government.

From the article:

The Catholic Church insist this would force them to close agencies as it would be against their religious beliefs to place a child in a gay household.

The use of the word "force" in this context is what I would call a lie. When a government forces someone to do something, it does so at gunpoint. Under no circumstances is the church being forced to close its adoption agencies; quite the contrary, it is being asked to please keep them open. The fact that the church does not wish to comply with the anti-discrimination law and consequently plans to close its agencies means that it is choosing to close the agencies.

John Deighan, parliamentary officer for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said members of the Bishop's Conference were so concerned they were seeking legal advice on their rights.

[some quotes deleted here for brevity]

"What we are looking at is are the UK government stepping over their competence by bringing into law regulations that do away with rights under the European Convention of Human Rights? We are not even being allowed to follow our consciences in saying we think married couples provide a better home."

What right is being violated? They're still allowed to believe as they like, and they may provide adoption services in compliance with the anti-discrimination law or choose not to place children with gay couples by choosing not to provide adoption services.

Further, it is my understanding that the church receives funding from the Scottish government, paid for with tax dollars, to provide adoption services. In other words, it isn't just providing adoption services out of the kindness of its heart, but rather, is doing so under contract for the government. It is not only the government's right, but in fact the government's duty to set standards for the provision of adoption services, for the benefit of the children involved. I can not see how the church has any right to receive tax dollars and place children for adoption; that would seem to be a privilege under any circumstances. If the church does not feel it can comply with the anti-discrimination law, it is right for them to choose to close their agencies.

Further, claiming that "We are not even being allowed to follow our consciences in saying we think married couples provide a better home" is, to be blunt, entirely false. They're entirely able under the law to continue saying that. They're just not going to continue to receive the privilege of being paid by the government and permitted to place children for adoption if they can't do so in the manner required by law.