“Smithers, release the hounds.” The game of personal destruction, and why it’s working.

Last month, my fearless friend Janna shared her heart wrenching story about how the redefinition of marriage contributed to the devastation of her life and the lives of her children.  Her story went viral and, apparently, that kind of truth-telling proves very threatening to the most rabid gay marriage activists.  If you have a few minutes to indulge me and get up to freeway speeds on this showdown, I shared my two cents on Janna here. Have at her they did.

While Janna took the careful, adult measures of protecting the identity of her husband, he revealed to the world that Janna brought a knife to a gun fight by sharing her full legal name on several blogs and included pictures of their children. In other words: Here you go haters, have at her.

Following this deluge of “love and tolerance”, Rivka Edelman, a writer, feminist, and daughter of a lesbian, detailed the campaign of harassment and intimidation against Janna.  She summarizes their intimidation tactics here:

Four steps comprise their usual character assassination. First, they call the individual a liar and say the person’s existence cannot be verified without more data about him or her. Second, once they have such data, they write to the person’s employer to get him or her fired or professionally destroyed. Third, if they cannot get the person fired, they go after the family members. Fourth, if they cannot turn the person’s family against him or her, they blast endless broadsides against the person, trying to make him or her feel afraid or unsafe at all times.

You could almost hear Mr. Burns instructing Smithers to “Unleash the Hounds” because now, of course, it’s Rivka’s turn.  In one insufferably long comment thread we see some pretty juvenile boasting regarding the unearthing of Rivka’s identity. Then, they use the exact formula that she so effectively called them out on. If we weren’t talking about peoples lives here, these tools might actually be funny. But they are not. They are dangerous and cruel. I have selected some excerpts for you to give you a good sense of their language and scare tactics. If these don’t paint a vivid enough picture for you, please do enjoy them in their gloriously hateful context in the link posted above.

They call her a liar:burns_hound

  • “She is a malicious lying anti-LGBT bigot”
  • “There appears to be some kind of pathology here… And there just seems to be no self-awareness. If so, [she’d] be seeking professional help.”
  • She “is lying in order to demonize gay people.”
  • “With a liar like this, you have to take all the information that provide you about themselves with a grain of salt.

They seek to harm her professional life:

  • “And now that editors and English Department Chairs know that B.A. Newmark, and Brittany Newmark is a vicious anti-LGBT bigot, they have more information for their publishing and hiring decisions.”
  • “Rots a Ruck getting your work published in any non-religious, non-bigot publication, now that the world knows that “B.A. Newmark” is a malicious, lying anti-LGBT bigot.”
  • “YOU’LL NEVER EAT LUNCH IN THIS TOWN AGAIN.”

The attacks involve her family:

  • “I wonder if her ex-husband is the talkative type?” (Followed up by several attempt to contact said ex-husband.)
  • “[She] is a walking, talking disgrace to her mother’s memory.”

They blast endless broadsides against her trying to make her feel unsafe at all times:

  • “I can tell you one thing for sure, she is gonna REGRET that association”
  • She’s another anti-gay bigot railing against the evils of same-sex marriage while she herself is a divorcee and married more than once.
  • “She doesn’t respect us and our being, she doesn’t *earn* the respect of her being.”

But wait, there’s more!

They discuss and share details about the birth of her children, her academic history, her places of employment, her house of worship, her engagement and marriage, and speculate about her ultra-orthodox Jewish community.

Despite one man’s repeated outcries for an apology from Rivka because she accused him of using the above listed methods of intimidation, in the same thread these men have dutifully proven every one of Rivka’s points.

I really couldn’t have orchestrated it better myself, so, thanks?

What is equally fascinating and horrifying to me in the aftermath of Janna’s truth and Rivka’s post is the feeding frenzy, the downright evilly motivated attack, centered on exploiting the personal lives of these two women.

Watching this train wreck is the perfect illustration of why so few people choose to stand against the radical wings of the gay marriage lobby.  Because it’s not just about sharing your story, stating your opinion, or arguing your points.  There is SO MUCH personally at stake for those who dare to speak against the machine, those who willing walk into the firing line, that it is just not worth it. They have ensured that the price tag is too high.

Obviously, these men do not represent most in the gay marriage movement. And yet, as I look over the threads where Janna and Rivka’s lives have been publicly gutted, I see few if any gay marriage supporters who are willing to confront the destructive methods wielded by these activists who share their views. I cannot help but draw a correlation to other extremists groups that I am told “are predominantly peaceful”.  Peaceful, but silent and thus, irrelevant. The loudest, most extreme set the stage and drive the narrative. Is this how the vast majority really want it to be?

Of my friends who are strong supporters of natural marriage, there are those who have gay parents, gay children, and gay ex-spouses.  Very few of them are willing to talk publicly about their views because they are struggling to maintain a relationship with that parent, child, or spouse.  They fear that their loved one could either be harmed or used against them if they were to voice their opinions.

I would like to encourage them to be brave, to say what needs to be said. Assure them that if they dare to jump in, the water is not as hot as it seems.

But I would be lying because it is hot. And shark infested. And you won’t be the same after you dive in.

Are we as a society really OK with that?

Really?

Advertisements

70 thoughts on ““Smithers, release the hounds.” The game of personal destruction, and why it’s working.

  1. Are we as a society really OK with that?

    It’s not okay. No, we don’t want to create a society like that. I really dislike the politics of personal destruction, the doxing, the attempts to shame and bully people into compliance.

  2. Katy I can’t with your blog anymore. You’ll say I’m going to stop reading for the same reason people attacked your friend, because that’s how you have to frame things in order to keep this narrative. Your twisting of the truth, inability to see anything besides what you want (you’re no better than your adversaries in this way), and your smugness is too much. The scariest part is that you believe that you love gay people. We’ve had too much of this harmful Christian “love” and we can’t take it anymore. With your kind of love, who needs enemies? Your title is quickly becoming truth instead of satire… something I never would’ve thought.

    • WOW, I guess the only reply I feel qualified to answer with is, I think you Katy , and your reader, both have a very good opinion of what is happening in our world. I can totally understand you BOTH. Thank you both for sharing your opinions!

    • Thinker: If you would stop a moment to listen to yourself, you are every bit as “smug” as you accuse Katy of being. You accuse Katy of not being able to see beyond herself and yet you will accept no answer, no theme that isn’t worded exactly the way you need it to be worded. You’re doing the same thing you say she is doing that is the same things as X is doing which is the same thing Y is doing which is the same thing Z is doing and on and on. This post isn’t about who is right. It isn’t about “my view” or “your view”. It is about the deliberate, pre-meditated, vicious campaign to ruin someone else’s life and whether you’re okay with that.

      If you’re okay with that, if ANYBODY is okay with that no matter WHAT they believe or don’t believe, then they should be spending considerably more time in front of a mirror than in telling someone else how horrible she is.

      Seriously.

    • My dear Thinker. You know that you are one of the greatest blessing that has come from my blogging. If I have twisted the truth somehow, please let me know. I read and re-read this post as well as the looooong string of comments on other said blog to screen for accuracy. TIsha is right. This post is not about whose argument is right and wrong, it’s about the freight-train of aggression that is channeled at those who speak out. Honestly. Please. Look at this and tell me that something isn’t really really wrong here:
      http://hudsonvalley.craigslist.org/com/4700725419.html
      It is a lynch mob.

      What have I done that tells you I don’t love gay people? Is the only way for me to “love” them to say that they have a right to marry and a right to children? Is the only way for you to love me to endorse all that I want and believe? Of course not. But if you need to go, I understand. We attempted the impossible, no? The genuine friendship of two people in diametrically opposed positions. You of course are always welcome to come back. And if not, even if we are only able to talk cats and dogs, I will take it.

      • Rivka and I don’t need to agree on everything to stand shoulder to shoulder against those who attempt to intimidate women in the name of “gay rights.”

        • I corrected some translations of Biblical Hebrew. I don’t think I ever saw the text. I do tons of work all across the spectrum. Honestly, the way these people lie is creepy. Sarah imagines to think she can criticizes me with some “heard it through the grape vine” accusation. She may think a bit too much of herself. Most people read something before they get all up in the kool-aid of pearl clutching righteous indignation– good of her to step up for Jesus. I bet Scott and Jeremy also steped up too.

      • Sarah is incorrect, very. In fact she is either lying, or repeating a lie. Sorry Bigot I can’t put any other way. I often check other writer’s text for accuracy of translation–I think that author was writing something about Daniel. I wrote nothing for that book. But Sarah like to lie and if anyone was wondering if she was either honest ot smart she showed them–Sarah needs to find a better source of information than the lowest rung of intellectual ladder at “GAY.” Your suggestion is offensive and ignorant and if you read the book also anti-Semitic. If she even glanced at the book she would not look so foolish. I am thanked —I am not a contributor–learn to read and try to be honest and don’t lie. My contribution–correct translation of Hebrew. I did not write a word. And even if I had people can write and say what they want–

  3. Wait a moment. The ex husband appears to be saying that Jeanna Darnelle is a real woman, and the piece was published under that name. Who is that Brittany Newark you’re talking about?

  4. This was sent to the entire English Department and administration
    Dear XXX
    I regret needing to contact you over the weekend, but I wanted to let you know as soon I could that the department as well as members of Equality XXX were sent an email last evening from Scott Rose. In the email, Rose identifies himself as a human right activist and an investigative journalist and presents the email as a “complaint.” He contends that you write under the pseudonym of Rivka Edelman and that a recent article written by Edelman and published in Public Discourse is anti-gay. I also wanted to let you know that I have been in contact with Interim Provost Mary Jo Zembar about the email.

    I believe that this is information that you would want to know. I also want to take this opportunity to affirm that I and XXX University respect academic freedom.

    Sincerely,
    XXXX

    They also sent two very long emails to the B.N. ex-husband asking him to side with them against her and looking for information they can use against her. They got nothing from him. But they are continuing to look and when they can’t find they will make it up as they have been doing. They do not seem to get that most of the time when two people produce other human life together they are not likely to try to destroy the other parent because some guy on the internet feels slighted and entitled after he has launched campaigns of hate to silence, shame and intimidate anyone who does not agree and anyone that thinks women are human because he sure doesn’t think so.

  5. This campaign, this attempt to ruin someone’s life by intended malice, is so so wrong. It isn’t about gay or straight, it isn’t about right or wrong. It is about being a person of character and standing up against bullying. Bullying is NOT okay. It’s not okay when it’s done to ANYONE, not matter their creed, race, sexual orientation, world view, cultural values, political ideology or any other defining characteristic.

    I know Katy would be the first person to not only agree with me but also to do what she could to stop this type of terrorism dead in its tracks, because this ISN’T about gay or straight, right or wrong. This is about being a person of character and refusing to allow anyone in society, no matter their beliefs, to use their “power” to abuse another.

    There’s not much I can do. But I CAN stand up and say “I, for one, CONDEMN the deliberate and intentional attempt to terrorize someone into silence by making a concerted effort to bring harm to themselves and their families.”

    When you choose to terrorize others, you have become what you decry.

  6. Actually it is about men using their power against women and mothers. That is exactly what it is about. Those men thought that the ex would would give them information about the mother of his child that could be used to harm her. That kind of thinking requires both an arrogance and stupidity not found in most of the population–sure dude crazy wacko on the internet I will give you information so you can lie about my child’s mother. There is a glitch in the wiring that allows for that kind of thought. These are abusive and dangerous people no doubt and they have no ethics.

  7. I think you all may want to read comments to Danielle’s article in Deseret News:

    http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/865611924/Redefining-marriage-hurts-women-children.html

    By the way, the article makes it look like Danielle lost the custody of the children: “the judge gave him practically everything he wanted.” But Danielle actually got 60% of custody. Did she want sole custody? That didn’t happen. Being gay is not a character flaw and a reason to lose custody.

    Then this: “And my ex-husband’s new marriage, like the majority of male-male relationships, is an “open,” non-exclusive relationship.” I wonder how does she know that. Did she hire detectives? Or simply pulled that bit from behind?
    And this: “Their father moved into his new partner’s condo, which is in a complex inhabited by 16 gay men” So far OK. But how does this make sense: “The walls in his condo are adorned with large framed pictures of women in provocative positions.” Those gay men with their large framed pictures of women in provocative positions? Wut?

    • FyVa ProLd, same sex fetishism can be debated as a flaw, however in this case it is not the relevent flaw. Changing the terms of your union with children involved for your own selfish desires is the flaw in play. If the husband had left her for a woman he would be getting whatever visitation SHE decided he should get and everyone would be behind her. Yet to leave for a man and a rapturous awakening he instead achieves an exalted status for the same contemptible behavior? As to the knowledge of his open relationship, put the detective novels down, he probably told her or told the children.

      • > If the husband had left her for a woman he would be getting whatever visitation SHE decided he should get and everyone would be behind her.

        I don’t think it’s how it works in the divorce proceedings. It’s the no-fault divorce, and nobody is a guilty party. Nobody gets to dictate custody terms.

    • FyVa: This post is not about whether Danielle is right or wrong….that’s a whole different thing. It’s about those who are trying to ruin her life intentionally, with malice and because they think she “deserves” to have her life ruined because she doesn’t think the way they do. Are you okay with that or are you not okay with that?

      How about we do a little flip flop? How about we have heterosexuals digging into a homosexual’s life, dragging out academic records, past failures and relationships, calling their church to “out” them, calling their job to have them fired, attacking not only this person’s belief but their character?. Oh wait, that’s already happened and it was wrong. And there were brave Christians, like AskMe, who called wrong wrong even when it those with whom she agreed who were wrong. So how about it?

      Do you believe it’s necessary to point out every inconsistency, every “wrong” move in order justify what’s been done to Danielle or can you say “Whoa. Wait. It’s wrong to bully someone no matter what their beliefs”?.

  8. Being anti gay does not mean a person deserves to have their personal life ripped a part. But then again those who are anti gay have agendas to make those who are gay lives more difficult.

    Whether or not someone is gay has zero impact on my life, so I really don’t care as long as they are treated just like everyone else. But our society doesn’t accept anyone who isn’t married that doesn’t have kids. If you are single, gay, living Childfree or Childless due to infertility you are outcasted as following the norm in society.

    • And believing that children have a right to their mother and father and that women’s bodies do not exist to produce children for men is not “anti-gay.”

      Thanks for weighing in.

      • What’s your opinion on Jeanna Darnelle having adopted a daughter from China? Did they deprive the child of the right to her own mother and father?

        • No. SHE didn’t deprive a child of the right to her own mother. China deprived that child of having a mother. The biological mother deprived the child of having the right to her own mother and father. Children are not placed for international adoption unless they’ve been abandoned by their biological mother and passed over for domestic adoption for a certain amount of time.

      • Do you only define a mother and father as being the two people that conceived that child? By that I mean do you not consider a heterosexual man or woman or couple who lack(s) a biological connection to a child but is raising a child to be a mother or father?

  9. Another bit of food for thought. In comments on the article in Deseret News, the ex-husband’s sister chimed in with this:

    “I am the sister of the man, that being said, here is the truth:

    1) He truly loved Janna when they were married and was committed to a life with her. In the ten years they had a son of their own and adopted a daughter from China (those two lives alone make it all worth while no matter the outcome of the marriage)

    2) When they divorced, it was very hard on Janna for obvious reasons, however, my brother tried to make it as painless as possible, the reason the judge said he could have gotten more was because he gave her the house and her car, while he took the credit card debt and student loans. They got joint custody, with the children going to their dad’s Tuesday night for dinner, and every other weekend.

    3) The kids are happy and well adjusted, I get exhausted just keeping up on facebook of all their outings (and I am not talking about “gay” activities, but the zoo, camping, family visits etc)

    I could go on but they limit the words, so let me end with…divorce is sad but life goes on.”

    And this:

    “Again, I want to emphasize, the children are not being “forced” to do anything. I know both of the parents and they both offer loving homes to the children, they just have very different world views. The children are two of the brightest, happiest, well-adjusted kids I know. Granted divorce is not the ideal but I truly believe that with loving parents, children grow and thrive whether those parents are together or not. Neither one is right or wrong here, they are both great parents, the kids are great kids…they spend quality time with both parents. I know many households where the parents stay together “for the sake of the children” and everyone is miserable, including the children because they are not oblivious to what goes on around them.”

    So let’s sum it up:

    The woman got 60% of custody, car and house and no debts, and she’s still bitter about that 7 years after divorce. And this outcome is apparently a reason to ban same sex marriage.

    • “And this outcome is apparently a reason to ban same sex marriage.”

      Exactly. This is a very specific situation that has very little to do with the majority of gay couples that have never been in an opposite-sex marriage; or so-called games of “personal destruction”. So I’m not sure how you can extrapolate this situation as some kind of warning that marriage equality will somehow destroy opposite-sex marriages. It’s hard to imagine even 1% of those marriages would involve a gay spouse.

      As a side note: After the US Supreme Court’s ruling & today’s Ninth Circuit ruling, it is highly likely that 35 states will soon have marriage equality. So situations like Jenna’s will be much less likely to happen in the future.

      • There was no Supreme Court “ruling” on the matter, by the way. They chose to deny cert.

        Why would redefining marriage make such things less likely to happen?

        A man wants to procreate, and the only way he can do so is for a woman to carry the baby in her belly for the better part of a year. That gives him a motivation to enter into a marriage with a woman.

        Once the children are born, and the mother has done the hard work of raising them through their early childhood, she has served her purpose and the father can ditch her for a man. With same-sex marriage, such ditching is no longer condemned, but celebrated.

        • It’s not how it happens. A man comes to his priest or pre-marriage councelor and says: I have same sex attraction. And then he hears: “it will go away after you marry! Don’t worry!”, which is either a straightforward lie or wishful thinking.

          • That is frankly untrue, FyVa. I have been Catholic for a long time and I have NEVER heard a priest or pre-Cana counselor say anything of the kind Stop perpetuating stereotypes, even as you howl against stereotyping of homosexuals. A good priest or pre-Cana counselor will validate the person as a beloved child of God, regardless of sexual orientation. He will acknowledge the strength and compulsion of any type of sexual feeling. He will then explain the teachings of the Catholic church on sexuality, which are consistent for all Catholics. He will explain the Christ-centered concept of chastity and the role that each person in the Church…married, widowed, separated, single or religious…plays in the expression of chastity. He will then bless the person and make a plan for follow-up with him.

            Hardly the blow-off you describe.

          • I’ve read quite a few people said they were told (by Mormon and Southern Baptists priests) to marry, regardless of their same sex attractions.

          • Southern Baptists and Methodists don’t have priests…..they have ministers or preachers. Roman Catholics have priests. You’ve just misrepresented an entire group of people.

          • No, I don’t think it is. If I say “gay leaders” are interested only in advancing their agenda and perpetuating the “gay myth” rather than attending to the individual wounds and needs of homosexuals, would that be “good enough” for you?

  10. Just because someone, who is associated with the one who left the marriage and caused the divorce, posts that the kids are suffering few to no effects from the divorce doesn’t make it true.

    *I* am a child of divorce, from two people who just could not get along, and I suffered from that divorce. I suffered from being separated from my non-custody parent and I suffered from not having an intact home. My experience is the same as many other children of divorce. Our voices are JUST as valid as the “the kids will be miserable if we stay together” argument. The very fact that there ARE so many damaged children of divorce shows that divorce isn’t necessarily best for children.

    • In your case, your parents divorced and possibly remarried or not.

      In Jeanna Darnelle case, they divorced, and the ex-husband remarried.

      Jeanna claims that because of her “suffering” (with 60% custody, house and car), same sex marriage is harmful.

      Would you, being a child of divorce, advocate for banning divorce, or for banning re-marriage?

      Of course, a divorce may be hard for children. But in many cases, it’s better than staying together. Or staying with an abusive or violent spouse.

      • FyVa: I don’t agree with in “many” cases and please don’t dismiss my pain and the pain of millions of others as something that’s really just “better for everyone in the long run”. Many children of divorce suffer from trauma ranging from increased anxiety regarding abandonment and insecure living arrangements to PTSD requiring medication and treatment. This is not a “oh, they’ll get over it”. It’s pretty clear to me, both personally and professionally, that the “it’s better in the long run” mantra is more self-serving than it is accurate.

        Ban divorce? As in make it illegal? No, I don’t think so. Even Jesus acknowledged the allowance of divorce due to human hardness of heart. But I believe a world with far, far more sacrifice on both sides, more agape love and more commitment to raising children in an intact family would serve society far, far better than our current revolving door policy.

        I never said someone should stay with an abusive or violent spouse. In cases of imminent harm to spouse or child, a hopefully temporary separation for safety is going to be necessary. I don’t know anyone who would disagree with that.

  11. Katy. You are one of the best people I know and I really want to be able to think more like you. I feel only partially armed when confronted and so often I panic. How do you do what you do? Are there websites you regularly turn to? How do you stay so balanced and gracious in your engagement with others? I tend to get all hot and bothered but that isn’t very effective. :p

    Keep it up. You are an inspiration.

    Love, Ellen

  12. Fyva: You still haven’t answered my questions. Briefly, is it okay to bully someone as the subject of Katy’s post has been bullied?

  13. Janna’s story — and the personal attacks on her that have resulted from her telling it — is completely sad and tragic! That’s absolutely, 100% true. Its impossible to convincingly argue otherwise.

    At the same time, this is a tactic (actual) bigots use: Give an account of one person and then use it to extrapolate out to an entire group. It is the same tactic used in times past to justify, say, segregation. Imagine a true and horrible story of an African American who shot a clerk while robbing a store and then using that to argue that blacks shouldn’t be allowed in shopping malls. The logic of using Janna’s experience to argue against equal rights for an entire group is like that. Exactly like that.

    For every experience similar to Janna’s — and, sadly, there are many others (I know of one personally) — there are a thousand same-sex couples who are loving and committed. And, of course, there’s no shortage of stories of marriages gone horribly wrong involving “traditional” couples.

    Fortunately, when this blog started, 11% of Americans lived in states where same sex marriage is legal. Today it is over 60%. Progress has some through the courts, through legislatures, through popular referendum. Within a decade, gay marriage will be legal nationwide. Within two decades, the arguments for denying marriage to same sex couples will seem as anachronistic as the (mostly similar) arguments for denying marriage to interracial couples.

    History is arching in the right direction on this issue. As history does. To wit: Can anyone think of a past example of rights being expanded from a privileged group to every adult and history judging that as wrong?

  14. I’d like to understand what you want to happen in a situation like this. Should anyone be able to promote a personal story anonymously with the intent to use it to campaign against a group of traditionally oppressed people? Is it wrong for the people who feel oppressed and who, whether you agree with them or not, feel they are being denied a basic human right to investigate the personal story being used against them?

    For all you claim to love and support the many gay people in your life, you must know that they do face and have faced a level of discrimination that is compatible with racial or sex discrimination. It is now no longer acceptable to tell black people they can’t go where white people go; it’s no longer acceptable to tell women they can’t have the same career paths as men. You and this woman you feel is a victim are still telling people that same sex couples shouldn’t have the same rights and heterosexual couples. If you can’t see the root of the anger and outrage your stories cause, you must be blind.

    • Yes people can be anonymous. Who is more of a minority abused children in the LBGT community or the LBGT adults with all their powerful organization? This story proves LBGT is an abusive bunch and they attack the victim. Want marriage and children–look how they treat an adult child of the community. I am not anonymous any more. And they lost quite a bit of leverage threatening me, my job and my family. I will expose all of it–ALL. Do they think I am going to be cowed by their abuse and shaming–hon I grew up with this I know it like my name. They posted my child’s name on the internet. You think that is okay? They sent emails to my family trying to get them to say I was a liar. You think that is okay. Here is the deal–I am telling the truth. My ex husband sent me all the emails from the LBGT “activist” that were sent to him at work offering him hero staus if he lied and say that I was liar. My ex-husband in fact also knows I am telling the truth. This has become a terror campaign. And the funny thing is that they can’t silence me. If I loose my job because of emails they sent to zillions of people where I work I am going to open up a Go Fund Me and let people see how the LBGT treats the adult children–you think any other rich elite white male. By the time I am done telling my story these people will wish that they had never tried to attack me and my family . Rights, you do not even want to go down that path–children have rights and all these people know is how to abuse and harm. And now everyone sees what they are doing. Love Rivka (not going to be shamed or cowed by a bunch of misogynistic white guys)

      • Are you Janna Darnelle?

        If yes, can you clarify a few points?
        1. Everybody would get better understanding of merits of your case, if you’d tell how the divorce decree divided the property, liabilities and custody. The article shows it as unfavorable. How unfavorable it was?

        2. How same sex marriage affected your marriage and divorce, if there was no legal same sex marriage at that time?

        3. If the condo where the ex-husband lives is inhabited by gay men, why would there be “large framed pictures of women in provocative positions” on the walls?

        4. How do you know “ex-husband’s new marriage, like the majority of male-male relationships, is an “open,” non-exclusive relationship”? How many straight unmarried people are not in exclusive relationships, having “casual” sex instead?

        5. What is “transgender baseball games”?

        • No I am not Janna I am the woman that wrote an essay in support of her. And I was attacked. I was raised in an LBGT home and it would seem that I am their worst nightmare and I must be silenced and harassed my family has been threatened. Please take your manipulative question off the table. I grew up in the loving community. I know all the manipulations and tricks. Janna should not address a single one of your questions. You may have a right to ask and she has the right to answer.–Rivka

        • Fine. I’ll bite the bullet.

          You’re quibbling about details. Divorce is destructive no matter who gets custody. Fixating on the quantitative litigation totally misses the point of the qualitative loss one woman faced for doing nothing wrong. And if we’re really quibbling…really it was a no-fault divorce? You really believe that a married man with a sudden gay awakening to divorce his wife and marry a man did not cheat on Darnelle with his lover? How did he discover his new identity without acting on those homosexual impulses first to realize he’s gay? C’mon.

          The legalization of “same-sex marriage” affects “heterosexual marriages” because it incorrectly treats two different types of relationships as one and the same in the law. What’s this difference? When a man and a women have sex, their union is prone to produce a child. Does it always? No, because sterility, random chance or whatever. However, whether or not gestation and pregnancy occur is less of the point. Instead, what’s important is that the physical relationship between a man and a woman, for the vast majority of cases, CAN produce a child. The union is apt to such an end. On the homosexual side of the coin, a man and a man or a woman and a woman can’t produce a child no matter how many times they try. Their repeated “putting of square pegs in round holes” will never result in a child that shares both of their DNA. Their unions are essentially incapable of procreation, while a heterosexual relationship is capable of procreation. The understanding of marriage throughout the annals of time has recognized this biological fact of human sexuality up until about 15 years ago.

          Therefore, redefining marriage to include unions between two men and two women removes procreation from the equation in public policy, which in turn, diminishes the blood ties between father and son, father and daughter, mother and son and mother and daughter in the view of law. The blood ties is the objective fact which the mediating institution of the family has to keep the government at bay in domestic affairs. With the legalization of same-sex marriage, that objective shield disappears as families are just subjective arrangements between individuals. They become purely arbitrary and to be brushed aside whenever government “has a compelling interest” or “for the common good.” By legalizing same-sex marriage we take a demonstrable step toward Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Freedom is curtailed, and only fools surrender it. Only fools concede the biological bond between children, present and or future, as illusory. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little equality will deserve neither and lose both.”

          Your third question is a red herring and irrelevant. What does it prove? That these gay men aren’t just bombarding Darnelle’s children with homoeroticism. Gay men also cross-dress often as provocatively clothed women. What it does show that these children are being subjected to a highly sexually charged environment, where women are objectified. Is this ideal? Would you expose your children to such images and remove childhood innocence?

          Once again your fourth gripe is not damning and is periphery. It draws no blood for the same reasons your third question doesn’t.

          • I suppose we are talking about the civil contract between two people, also known as civil marriage, not about any church rites of marriage.

            Because this is what The Gays are asking.

            First, let’s see what the civil marriage is NOT:

            1. It’s NOT a licence from the state to have sex, and NOT an obligation to have sex.
            2. It’s NOT a licence to have children and NOT an obligation to have children.
            3. It’s NOT an implicit consent for sex from each spouse.

            What are NOT qualifications and dis-qualification for marriage?
            1. Childbearing age is NOT required.
            2. Fertility is NOT required.
            3. Right genitals are NOT required. A person may not have proper genitals from birth or because of trauma of disease, but it’s not a reason for the state to deny marriage.
            3. Ability to have sex is NOT required.
            4. Common domicile is NOT required. A prisoner can marry a free person, even though they may never be allowed conjugal visits.
            5. Amount of income is not a factor. Rich and poor and indigent can marry.
            5. Criminal history, drug abuse history, education or lack of it, moral character are NOT considered (dis)qualifying factors.

            What are qualifications and dis-qualifications for marriage?
            1. Legal age. An underage person cannot marry.
            2. Legal capacity to enter contracts. A person of age who doesn’t have mental capacity cannot marry.
            3. Not being already married. This is an exclusive contract.

            What two married people are now that they weren’t before? They are now legal next of kin. Now, they have certain privileges, such as right not to testify against each other, implicit right for hospital visitation, right to make medical decisions for each other, survivors right to take the body and inherit property. There is assumption of parentage for children born into marriage, even if those children are completely unrelated by DNA to the parents. They can jointly adopt children. In recognition of their joint finances, the state allows them to file joint tax return.

            There’s been so many cases where, after death of one person in same sex relationship, the survivor lost everything, because child/children and/or siblings/parents successfully contested the will and took all of the estate. Imagine two women (like in Windsor case) having amassed a fortune, but not being married. One dies and another loses all of that because a blood relative contests the will? If they were married, this would not happen.

            You’re saying opposite sex marriage should not give the same legal privileges as same sex “marriage”. Which recognition would you afford for two people who love each other? Are you OK with civil unions? Which rights and privileges would you not give the civil unions, compared to a marriage?

      • It’s always sad when relationships break up and there are children involved. It becomes tragic when the adults cannot find a way to remain civil to each other and publicly denounce each other. Vilifying the life choices of your ex-partner could never, under any circumstances, have helped your kids through the process. From your side of the story, your ex-partner has reacted in an equally foul manner. Not good choices from either of you.

  15. Hey there. Thanks for linking to my post. However, you are leaving out a few things in order to make a convenient point. Let’s begin.

    First and foremost, let’s start with “Ms. Edelman’s” Public Discourse article. As you will see if you look at it now, Public Discourse had to alter the original piece and publicly apologize to me. Why? Because “Rivka” wrote all kinds of defamatory claims in her initial piece saying that I, Jeremy Hooper, tried to get Janna fired, went after her family, etc. When nothing could be farther from the truth. That is not my style. I never go after the person and always focus on the work. I wrote a simple post (found here: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/09/gay-man-realizes-he-shouldnt-have-entered-an-opposite-sex-unionso-no-same-sex-marriage-for-anyone.html) pushing back against “Janna Darnelle’s” claims, which, let me remind you, were vicious to gay families. As a married gay dad who writes about and works around LGBT politics for a living, you better believe I am going to push back against a post that suggests gay people should stifle out realities, remain unmarried, never have families of our own, etc. It’s what I do. But I had zero interest in finding out who “Janna Darnelle” really was or is. Still don’t.

    Which brings me to why it was important to name “Rivka.” When I first learned her name (side note: it was not because I personally dug for it; “Rivka” signed on to an amicus brief opposing same-sex marriage where she also gave her real name and someone informed me of this), I really didn’t care to bring her out from behind her pseudonym. That is until I learned the truly heinous—HEINOUS!—things that she has written on the internet, both about trans individuals (calling people ugly, seeming to encourage suicide, etc.) and men in general. I was stunned that someone who had accused me of making personal comments and going after people in this way had herself filled multiple public forums with this very kind of language. And that’s when her “real” identity became newsworthy.

    We should note here how you fail to mention the nasty things that “Rivka”/B.A. Newmark actually wrote. As I said: convenient. I do encourage readers to go look at the post to see a selected assortment of her comments: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/10/rivka-edelman-is-ba-newmark-prolific-and-shocking-anti-trans-activist.html#comment-1623905341

    And then let’s talk about the biggest whopper of your whole post: the idea that my comments section was filled with multiple commenters who did the kinds of things you describe. You fail to tell your readers that virtually all of the comments that you excerpted come from Scott Rose. I’m not exaggerating; all but maybe two or three of your excerpted comments come from one person: Scott Rose. This is the same Scott Rose who is mentioned here on this site in the comments section because of his choice to write Ms. Newmark’s employer, the same Scott Rose named in the Public Discourse piece for going after people, and the same Scott Rose who is quite well known for certain commenting patterns. He’s also the same Scott Rose who I myself have public repudiated for some of the things he says and does. However, I run a truly open comments forum with little moderation, whether it comes from the pro-LGBT side or the anti-LGBT side. But it is ridiculously unfair to link one (or even two or three) commenter’s actions with the site’s writer, the LGBT community, the majority of the site’s readers, etc, which you do repeatedly throughout this post (e.g. “these men”). That is the same error Ms. Newmark made when she tried to link me to Scott Rose in her Public Discourse article—and again, it is why Public Discourse felt the need to take the truly rare step of publicly apologizing to me for the defamation.

    Your outlook on this is ridiculously skewed.

    Jeremy Hooper
    Good As You
    http://www.GoodAsYou.org

  16. IMHO: Good to see you and may I be the first to say “great job”. Great job writing a piece that reflects your points. Great job being a strong voice for what you believe. Great job not being cowed by terrorism. These are all really admirable qualities and I thank you for speaking out for those who have been terrorized into silence.

  17. Tisha thanks, I may write something else about this whole thing and the misogyny. They did exactly what I said they would–exactly and some even nastier. I would like to explain it more fully. Right now I am crunched by the High Holy Days and I have two big deadlines I have to meet and I’m not as far along on the project as I would like. This has taken up time in a few ways– had to contact people and let them know what was going on and if they got a aggressive abusive emails to forward them to the festering pit in cyber space or to me. Then I felt that I had to be responsible since they posted the names of other people, including my child. We had to alert places for safety reasons. Yeah “family and children mean so much–they so “get” the value. Everything to them is a weapon or someone to harm. It is chilling to me they posted my child’s name all over but that was a threat to me a warning–very male, very crazy. Here’s the thing. I know all of these tactics I these behaviors. They make stuff up, they gas-light, a lie stuck to– will become the truth–that should be their motto. Poor Janna what does she have six more years.

    These men think they can shame people–their big weapon is calling everyone that does not salute the jack booted thugs a bigot–bigot, shimgot. Oh she is so mean, such a hater, shocking, hand to heart–only that’s just a manipulation–the shame tactic. They do nothing for anyone except demand and they have the nerve to call other people haters–they live on hate they love it and they hate more than most people can imagine.

    Me knowing they are lying jerks does not cause them to get killed or any other absurd exaggeration they throw around–more male manipulation. No guilt no shame because that is just a power play to harm people. All bigot means is someone who does not agree with them and am not willing to play maid or lackey. It has no other meaning.

    The problem is the crazy factor–lets say X and Y are jerks, pearl clutching and trying to silence and be abusive but they may not be dangerous–then there is some wacko who could be dangerous. And you don’t know. So I have had to deal with that. From what I am hearing and what is getting sent me. It seems that the “she’s lying” is going down the tubes. lying.

    Now they have to reframe me as crazy or bitter or some other male missive because a group saying some similar things kinda makes the “crazy, exception”pitch questionable. Their tried and true tactics don’t work and they can’t change because they are too arrogant to give us our experience–they are too abusive–silence and trying to hurt and shame is all they know. That is how they treat people–people need to pay attention–rich elite white men are not the victim–they victimize. These guys try to claim it is discrimination if they can’t destroy other peoples lives–“that’s not fair.” –Rivka

  18. Here is part of one of the emails sent to my ex-husband. It confirms an organized campain to bully and terroize and silence women who speak out against men. So while Mr. offers protection to a man (who did not and will never lie for Hooper) in order support Hoopers campaign to damage me I want to know where to I send my child so she is safe. These men are dangerous. I have death threats that were posted on Hoopers blog. Yes Mr. Hooper please weigh in here. I will be going to the police and the authorities The only safety I have is if people know. I do not even know if I am safe going to work. Thank Mr. Hooper and who is that needs protection. /Users/Brittany/Desktop/Screen Shot 2014-10-14 at 6.01.57 PM copy copy.jpg

  19. Here is part of an email sent to my ex-husband that he then forwarded to me. For the record My ex husband has told these men from Hoopers blog to not contact him again. The harassment is off the hook. As it stands and as parents we are both concerned about our daughter’s safety. There is a threat of violence against me in the comments section of “GAY” It seems clear that this is an organized campaign to threaten bully and terrorize, me and my family. Mr. Hooper says he does not know a thing about it . Read the email. As on the face of it seems to support my theory.

    Yes, Mr Hooper has put me and my family in danger, my job at risk –and has allowed for threats of violence against me to be posted on his blog comments. The threat of physical violence that was posted against me on Hoppers blog is being taken seriously–very. The fact that my child’s name is up along with our address may put our daughter in danger. I wonder if anyone thinks Mr Hooper is not responsible for putting my family in danger. Women who disagree with men will be threatened with violence and many are killed–. Given the content of the email I have a hard time believing Mr Hooper. Since I do not have a way to protect my family and I am not safe at work I maybe forced to take this outside of writing and move it into the courts or an agency that deals with threats and bullying. Ironic because the courts is exactly where these men were trying to shut me out of. While these men love to threaten to sue I find it sad and troubling but I may not have a choice the bullying, intimidation and damage is very serious. And I need to be restored. I am sure Mr Hooper can understand. I am betting he denies all of this and does not issue an apology to me and my family–and forces me to seek relief through other venues. But first I feel in order to keep my family say this needs to go as far and wide as possible. People need to see the tactics. I am sure Mr. Hooper is very proud.

    Note statements such as : “where we fight back against Brittany and her bigotry” and
    “Jeremy WILL protect you”

    From: “SXXXX, NXXX”
    Subject: Fwd: Rivka (Bethany) Edelman/Newmark/SHPncer/Klein
    Date: October 6, 2014 9:17:17 AM EDT
    To: BrXXX XXXX

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Straight Grandmother
    Date: Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:41 AM
    Subject: Rivka (Bethany) Edelman/Newmark/SHPncer/Klein
    To: nXXXXr@oXXXX.edu

    Dear NXXX ShXXXX,
    This is my desire, my hope really, that you are a nice person and do not hate people who are gay or people who are transsexual. By now you must know about what your ex Brittany wrote and was published on Public Discourse. Perhaps you have read through the comments on GoodAsYou, where we fight back against Brittany and her bigotry. I read a lot on English Manif and of course her Amicus Brief to our Federal Court Judges in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and different people are upset about different things she wrote
    Here is how they fight against Gay Civil Rights. The only thing they have going is their personal narrative, which makes it very difficult to discredit. We have no way of knowing do we, no way of knowing how much if their personal narrative is made up just to further their Hate Agenda. The only way we have to discern the truth is to delve into their personal narrative. And the only way to delve into their personal narrative is to find people who knew them way back when. This is very very difficult to do, and to be quite honest it is kind of icky. It’s icky because it invades people’s personal privacy. But then on the other hand, they are the ones themselves who are offering up their personal lives as reasons to deny gays Civil Rights. See how this puts gay rights advocates between a rock and a hard place? They kind of force us to do something distasteful, but if we don’t then their lies stand.

    I don’t know if you will provide the true answer to my question or not. I hope you will. And actually you don’t even have to respond to me. You can respond to Jeremy Hooper (contact@GoodAsYou.org) with the truth. Jeremy WILL protect you, but if you are brave you could have the fact attributed to yourself. Think hard and try to discern the right thing to do.

    Yes the right thing lie–always a good idea. I am taking suggestions on how to keep my family safe.

      • There is the screen shot that proves who it is from. As for style I suspect that Granny is a few people–I’m betting interns at GLAAD or HRC and maybe Hooper too. She is gone now–Funny how we demand an investigation and poof. You think they have been less than honest? I mean Hooper that sterling character–I don’t know I can’t imagine it. There are emails that damn these guys six ways to Sunday.

  20. Hey, “Rivka.” I would love to weigh in, as you requested. Unfortunately, the proprietor of this site has blocked all of my attempts at commenting, suggesting to me in multiple emails that my viewpoint is already expressed her and thus unneeded. Or, alternately, that I have my own platform so therefore have no need to dialogue in another.

    If she changes her mind and decides that I do, in fact, have a compelling interest in responding on a thread where I am named and directly challenged, I will gladly go over your comment point by point. Sadly, I’m not holding my breath.

    —J

    • You want to weigh in? I will ask her to open the comments. I can’t even imagine what you think you are going to say after what you have done to me and to my family. Whatever, I am sure it will be all about you and trying to distance yourself from the campaign of hate and harassment that was launched at your blog. But let’s get down and dirty. You want to weigh in on the over 40 emails to have me fired—each filled with disgusting speech to inflame and incite and mischaracterize me. Or the ones sent to me? Maybe weigh in on the threats—too many to count. The lies some so stupid that they seemed like jokes. Maybe just weigh in on the more general abusive campaign of hate and bullying—how much do you want to weigh in? A pound? Two? Before you do. Let me be very clear. I am disgusted and very angry. And do expect to be restored. Crazy I know because you imagine you had every right to do what was done. And here she comes stealing the victim thunder after weeks of a bullying spree—the heady days of “activism”. So when I say expect I know you will deny everything. And I will continue to what I expect

      I expect to be fully restored to my situation prior to the campaign to silence, shame, harass and terrorize me and my family that took place on your blog. And I do not care how it happens—that falls under not my problem. I want the web scrubbed clean—I don’t care if you and the commenter have to hire a mime troupe with teeny-weeny brushes—it all needs to be gone. Everything related to the campaign to terrorize and bully me is gone. And I mean fast. Do not pull the don’t know Rose—too bad go and meet him.

      I expect letters sent to everyone that Rose wrote to have me fired. I want him denounced in each and every letter and I want everything he said about countered. I want to approve the text. I want the letters to say that X is deeply sorry for all the terrible egregious misinformation that Scott Rose sent. And then explained he is a vindictive jackass and has no platform or right to weigh in.

      I don’t give a rats tail that you pull that “shocking” pearl clutching righteous indigantion—god good get some new moves people—I am so bored my eyes are rolling back in my head. Let’s try honesty. I go first: I will not be quiet. You can’t silence me. And I will keep demanding to be restored. Which means I am really talking about the damage which means I will get the court to hear what I have been put through because of the brief. I know it may be SOP I will expose the tactics that most people will not find too savory. And I will not shut up until every bit of damage is addressed. Which includes my daughter privacy being violated. And mine as well.

      You were banking on the fact that you could shame me and my fear of shame would keep me quiet. Don’t count on it. Good grief your blog is so full of misinformation that I really could not care what you said about me but you took it past words. Digging into my personal life and past—disgusting, no surprise. Contacting my ex husband and other family to get them to lie—posting harassing and abusive things all over to terrorize me. Oh man you think this is okay? I expect to be restored and I still do not agree. I still will not withdraw my amicus. And that was this was about getting me to pull the brief Smarten up. What other than the pleasure of harming my family and me have you gained? Do you imagine that you were on the right side of this? Do you think people who hear that someone who grew up in LG and now does not agree was savaged and driven out of her job thinks that’s okay? How do you think that looks good to the average person? I mean do your parents think that would be okay behavior? What next pitch forks and clubs? You think you can take us down one by one. Do the math, there are more of us than there of you. So typical you think you invented it. You think there was nothing before you walked in the door. Get over yourself and own the abuse and damage you caused and get it repaired.Ryan Anderson owned my mistake and you got your apology and change. Now you own Scott Roses–but you wont because of mysogny–the topic that started this. See, ruffeled male feathers are so much more important than a womans trashed life and family. I said it was a dangerous mens rights movement and I was proved right. I still expect to be restored and call me a bigot and hate till the cows come home–sound like teacher in Charlie Brown. I happen to think you owe me–call my ex husband to get him to lie–wtf. Just hire some dude to say he was married to me it is less offensive and more respectful–I want a full apology describing what was done. And get the lies off your blog.

        • Oh, and by the way, “Ms. Edelman,” on your latest American Thinker piece, two commenters called for me to be beheaded and one more suggested I should be shot. But don’t worry, I will not expect you to answer for content you did not create, which was presumably written by people you do not know. Then again, I understand the way the internet works.

          • Sorry, but I have to leave one more comment because I just re-read your comment for the thirtieth time and have finally made some semblance of sense of it. Are you trying to again say that *I* called your ex husband and *I* wrote your employer, etc? Because that is the very thing that got you in trouble with Public Discourse! You cannot just say that I did things that I did not do. I am not my thousands of commenters.

  21. Pingback: “First they came for the (insert ‘not you’ group here)”- Idaho pastors face jail time. | asktheBigot

  22. Pingback: Welcome G-A-Y readers! (Some context on my exhange with Jeremy Hooper) | asktheBigot

  23. *sigh* This gives me a headache reading all the nonsense “IMHO” wrote. The most interesting thing is that she expects her 1940’s ( saw her pic somewhere and assume she’s in her 70’s) experience growing up is relevant to the environment children are growing up today. Give it up lady your pathetic commentary does not give credence to your backwards opinions.
    This commentary is strictly my own…not that or the author of this piece nor the other commenters…CUZ THATS HOW THE INTERNET WORKS!

    • Hi Patrick. Welcome.

      There’s an array of experience by those who have been raised by same-sex couples. Just because hers doesn’t jive with the outcomes you want to see doesn’t mean that it’s “irrelevant.” That her story is such a threat to these gay men is telling. Also, your comment has been approved but by all means please peruse the Rules of Engagement above because using words like “backwards” and “pathetic” in relation to a commenter is teetering on the edge of bigotry, and we actually don’t allow that here, even though we are on the INTERNET.

      • It speaks volumes–it proves my points about what it is like to grow up with that day in and day out. They do not even see it. Stunning.

  24. I can’t even respond to the actual justification of bullying someone because they don’t agree with you. It’s just that ridiculous yet disturbing……

Comments are closed.