Who is this Christian ‘bigot’?

I spent my childhood in Portland, OR.  My parents divorced when I was in fifth grade.  A year later my mother met and fell in love with her partner.  I grew up with my mother’s partner and the community of women that became a part of our lives.  My mother and I have always been close- she is the greatest mother anyone could ask for!  (Peeps, that’s no exaggeration.)  It could be my “live in the moment” personality, but it seems that each year my heart grows closer to her.  I consider her partner, now going on 25 years together, my dear friend.  We see each other whenever we can squeeze in a visit, we enjoy holidays together and they are an important part of my children’s lives.  I also have a wonderful dad!  My parents worked hard to make sure that I didn’t lose a relationship with either parent after the divorce, and my dad’s involvement in my life has been irreplaceable. He blessed me with the gift of always being interested in my activities and who I was becoming throughout my life.  I am grateful that we get to see him and his wife several times a year.  They are wonderful grandparents to my kids.6692826-1x1-700x700

I studied Asian Studies and Political Science in college– but most of that knowledge moved out when the child-rearing phase of my life moved in.  I studied Chinese all four years– thankfully I’ve remembered much of that.  After graduation, I was awarded a Fulbright scholarship so my husband and I spent our first year of marriage in Taiwan.  I then worked at a Chinese adoption agency while my man got his Master’s degree at Denver Seminary.

We now live in Seattle where my husband is a pastor.  (Is this the part of the intro where I say “I love my husband and he is one of God’s great gifts to me?”  ‘Cause he is.) We have four children.  We adopted our youngest from China in the summer of 2011.  I get to stay at home and connect with other moms as together we figure out how to walk with Christ and raise our kids.  When I’m not wife-ing, mothering, cleaning, cooking mostly-whole-food meals, hosting dinners and doing Women’s Ministry, I enjoy reading, sitting alone at Starbucks, walking with friends and shopping at Goodwill.

I became a disciple of Christ in high school and I don’t think it’s inaccurate to say that I was hostile toward Christians before that.  (Just ask my now-best-friend.  In a noisy scene at her locker I loudly and aggressively bullied her about how close-minded she was for being a Christian.)  As I listen to many who wear the mantle of “Christian” it seems that the Jesus they describe looks like them- he loves everything that they love and demands no change of their thoughts or behavior.  But the Christ of scripture does not look like us.  He says that following Him means dying to me- my appetites, comforts, habits, and my natural tendencies.  Understanding what Christ said about Himself and what the true Christian life entails will weave its way through many of these Blog posts.

As my Canadian cousin would say, “I have a foot in each bucket.”  Today I carry that world of my childhood in my heart and relationships. I now also live in a world with Christ at the center and everything else as secondary.  But the same Christ who said “I am not of this world” also moved into our neighborhood, and we are to go and do likewise.  We are to be “in the world, but not of it.”  We are to be separate, but involved.  We are not to be “conformed any longer to the pattern of this world,” but we are called to love those in the world that God deemed precious enough to die for.  To achieve this call, we need to be “transformed by the renewing of our mind” and have the Spirit of God in our every breath.  God help us.


117 thoughts on “Who is this Christian ‘bigot’?

  1. I come from a conservative family, but have a lot of friends who are more liberal politically and theologically than I am. I also had a cousin leave her husband and two boys for another woman and saw how difficult it was on our family. Nobody knew how to respond or react to it. I just wonder if things could have been different. I love the way your “bigoted” position is one that comes from first-hand experience and that you can be true to yourself and your belief, and your family, all at the same time. You’re a great writer, as well.

    • Thanks for your comments, Jason. And thanks for following the blog. I’m honored and humbled.

      I’m sorry to hear about your cousin’s family. It’s so difficult for children (and adults) when the two people they love the most in the world don’t love each other. Withdrawal and clamming up are very human responses to pressure and difficulty- I know that I can slip into the temptation to withdraw from tense situations. In the past (and sometimes today) this has meant that Christians have lived more within a bubble so as to lessen their interaction with those outside of the Body of Christ. As I mention in “Why do you hate gay people” I think that engagement with culture is the beginning of credible testimony. But engagement is almost always messy. And yet we have to be faithful in whatever the mess may be, without allowing it to pull us down. We often quote James 1:27 which talks about striving to care for the most needy in our world, but we sometimes overlook the last part of the verse “to keep yourself unspotted from the world.” With humility, we have to love and serve whoever God puts in our life. His goal is seldom for our comfort, and always for our holiness. Sometimes He allows us to see the fruits of our efforts, and sometimes all we see is the transformation of our own character. Either way, He certainly asks that, like Him, we “move into the neighborhood” by loving, serving, engaging, reasoning with, and praying for those in our life who are not yet in the family of God.

      Godspeed, Jason. Thanks for the edifying words that I’ve read in your blog.

  2. Hi there. I stumbled on this blog and I want to thank you so much for keeping up with this. I am a new Christian who recently was saved last year. I very much enjoy learning about Christ and how much He has died for us. I once had engaged in liberal ideologies and had many liberal friends. Now, as I learn more about Christ my stance and belief about many things have changed, especially when it comes to same sex marriage. I watch as my numerous friends have dwindled. I struggle with the thought of coming clean as a Christian since I do have liberal friends who believe Christians are bigoted. I have gay friends who would soon cut off friendship if they find out I have become Christian — they refuse to talk to anyone who disagrees with them. It’s so disheartening to see and hear the false accusations towards many Christians in the media. It makes it hard for me to confess my love for Christ because of this. Knowing your background gives me great comfort that just because I do not agree with same sex marriage does not mean I am bigoted. I wish many more people read your blog and your unique experience. Again, thanks so much for giving me a voice once more. I will be reading more of your blogs periodically.

    • Diana, thank you for your comments. Especially in this sensational cultural climate, it is very difficult to reach out to those with whom we disagree, extend genuine love, and stand uncompromisingly upon our convictions. I am so grateful that you have been encouraged through these posts!! You can sign up to receive email updates if you like.

      Also, if you haven’t read it yet, I would encourage you to read the post “Why do you hate gays” and give me your feedback. That is the main post where I talk about how to sacrifice for those who are on the other side of this issue.


      Be encouraged, friend. Being compassionate doesn’t mean that we abandon conviction. You can love Christ with all your heart. And that will spur us on to love others with abandon.

  3. Thank you so much for your blog. I’m really enjoying reading your posts and I’m feeling encouraged. I have been a Christian my entire life but during my teens/early twenties fell for the social programming of the media and society in regards to the “gay” lifestyle. After becoming a mom at 26 I wanted to know everything I could about what was best for my child. It became increasing clear that gender roles play a fundamental role in a child’s healthy development and that every child deserves to be raised by their biological mother and father who are in a loving and low conflict relationship. My husband’s father left when he was 5 years old and I’ve had to see him work through the pain and suffering of being abandoned by his father. I’m hoping that more an more people will see that this is not about taking away the rights of individuals but is about advocating for the rights of children.

    • Wow. Thank you for your thoughts and comments. This topic is not a simplistic one and there is much to consider. But you are right, children have a right to be known by, and raised by, their mother and father and there is loss when one or both are absent. I love those in my life who are gay- regardless of the path they choose. But when it comes to promoting and endorsing a family structure, it should be the ONE that begins with wholeness for children.

  4. Very interesting stuff. For the most part I’ve shied away from the topic of homosexuality on my blog (well, I had a couple of snarky posts, but they actually made fun of those Christians who think JC Penney should act like a Christian company, but other than that…) . I’m going to keep your blog in my feed and just point people your way! 🙂

  5. This is really interesting info. Thanks for sharing.

    Without trying to be rude or unkind, I’d like to ask how you think your own personal experiences might affect your views on gay marriage. Is this potential bias something you actively try to adjust for? Do you think it’s possible you could have lingering apprehension about gay marriage due to your mother’s choices that unduly weights your opinion?

    • First may I ask, if someone with a gay parent came to a conclusion about same-sex marriage that supported your own opinion, would you call it a “bias”? Would you urge them to actively adjust for their bias when they advocate for gay marriage?

          • It’s an interesting question. How ‘bout this, when you have a chance to ask a similarly situated adult child about their support of gay marriage, and about the steps they are taking to mitigate their ‘bias’ on the subject, post a link to their response here and I will gladly respond to your request.

          • Well, I would think that you would **crack your knuckles excitedly** at the opportunity to expose and evaluate bias on all sides of this debate. I actually would like to answer your question, and perhaps even make it a new blog post. But I’m curious if you meant what you said about how “everyone should be cognizant of how their bias colors their perception,” and if you are willing to challenge the ‘bias’ of those on the other side of this issue as well.

  6. WOW . . . stumbled on your blog while doing some other reading. The topic of the same-sex marriage and DOMA caught my eye. As a mom whose son has seemingly turned his back on walking out a life with Christ, he announced to me a little over a year ago that he was gay and that the homosexual community accepted him for who he is, not like the church. Needless to say, this announcement took a mother’s heart and twisted and turned it in all directions. My words to him were that he is loved and yet I can’t bend on the Truth just because he is my son. So he says then we agree to disagree. He has left home, following his boyfriend to California and I hear from his 2 siblings that he is engaged. There’s too much background info to put here, but I feel part of the reason he is struggling with his identity as God’s child is because his relationship with his biological father has been pretty much hit and miss. His dad was present, but emotionally absent/abusive to all of us.
    So I pray for my son and for his desire to return to his Father. Not for me, but for His glory.

    Thank you for being so open and transparent with your writing. I look forward to reading more. . .

    • Hello friend. Honored to have you share your heart here. You are one of the few that I know who are trying to walk that tightrope of loving your gay child without forsaking Christ’s truth. I pray that you will find encouragement on that path here but also pray that you have a handful of others in your real world with whom you can pour out your heart on this subject and mind help and mercy.

      What a lovely blog you have. I enjoyed your post about the woman caught in adultery. Will look forward to hearing more from you. Sooo glad to have met you!

    • This response is way after you wrote, so I realize you may not get it. But if you do … cover your son in prayer! If you have other Christian family members, ask them to pray for him daily!!

      I turned from the Lord to follow my lesbian inclinations at the age of 19 & lived that way for 16 years. By that time, I was so discouraged by my relationships with women, when the Lord sent me a kind & wonderful man, I bit, & we married within a year’s time. We lived an anti-Christ lifestyle together for 6 years.

      Then in 2013, praise God, the Lord got my attention, & I repented fully towards Him. My husband was so touched by the changes he experienced in me that within about 6 weeks he did the same. Now we live on fire for our God!

      I found out recently from my mom that it was not only she but also grandparents that prayed faithfully for me. And my brother’s family, including my darling 16 year old niece, said that she prayed for me every night. How that humbles me! I am in such gratitude to all of them & especially to our Creator, whose mercy is far beyond my understanding. Praise be to Him!

      • KP . . . thank you so much for your encouragement! The enemy is definitely wanting to sidetrack our prayers for our son and wants to use distance and lack of consistent communication as a tool! Your comment came at such a time as this and so I thank God and you that I read your note today!

  7. Askme! I’ve been thinking about you periodically and wondering how you are doing. You just stopped blogging so suddenly, and I miss your posts, but I also wanted to make sure you are doing ok. I’m the one who likes to argue 🙂 Hope all is well.

    • Hi Sarah! Really great to hear from you! We had a busy busy summer which included me helping our friend to remodel our basement because my husband had to have back surgery. And the way my life rolls, I only have time for one non life sustaining activity at once. So the blog had to go for a bit. But because once long ago you offer to pray for me, you can pray. That I would know whether or not to come back to blogging. I love it and I see some great fruit in it, especially the civil discussions. But on the other hand there is so much happening at my church. So many people who are hungry and thirsty and making big decisions and sacrifices for Christ. So many opportunities to walk with people through heart aches and joys. And right now every scrap of free time I have is spent in that. So I am seeking God. I don’t know where he wants my time because I can’t do everything. But I certainly love all of you and the fruitful discussions that we shared.

  8. Your blog is so refreshing to me as a born-again Christian myself. I’m not and never was gay, but when two of my very dear best friends confessed to me that they were bisexual, they slowly convinced me into accepting and embracing certain liberal theologies. I was convinced because I didn’t know what else to provide in the conversation – I always had a wavering belief in God, but I never read the Bible so I didn’t really know the Truth – that is, His Word. After a while, I ended up believing the myth that all Christians were bigoted and foolish for hanging onto “archaic” ideals/beliefs. I was straying further away from the Truth. And some Christians have convinced me that they really were “bigoted,” because on different websites they would post very hateful comments about gays and I would get angry, and most of my condemnation against Christians also came from knowing the horrible things the Westboro Baptist Church has said about gay people. But I was never fully at peace with the idea of gay marriage and such, and I always cursed myself for my lingering “homophobia.” Soon enough, though, the Internet introduced me to testimonies of people who once identified as gay but chose to follow Christ and found true peace/happiness. I also read a psychology book that described how one develops same-sex attractions, also debunking the “born gay” myth, and started to see how that tied into my own friends’ development into their bisexual identities (ie. divorce between both their parents, one of them was molested as a child, one of their moms was a drug addict and abandoned them after doing time in jail and filing the divorce with their dad, exposure to numerous liberal theologies, and the list goes on).

    So I gave myself over to Christ. I had my own inner demons I needed to be dealt with (I was a very bitter, antisocial, hateful, and depressed person), so I gave them all to Him, to let Him walk with me. And my liberal theologies were torn down as I stumbled across blogs and websites like yours and I increasingly opened up to the Truth.

    I think you are a fine example of the ideal Christian. The reason I had so much resentment for Christianity was because of the way many Christians dealt with the subject of homosexuality and other sins. But now I realize that they have some repenting of their own to do. Followers of Christ are supposed to spread love to all people, even and probably especially to those who oppose him. I read a similar interesting story of true Christians that touched my heart, where this atheist man had attempted to to thwart Christian nativity in Texas – very hateful to Christianity – and one day, he fell ill, bed-ridden at home with low finances. And what happened? The very Christians he opposed stepped in to raise money to buy groceries for him and to help him get well. They cared for him even when he hated them. They showed him the love of Jesus Christ. And, what do you know, he decided to give his own life to Christ. He became a Christian – the very type of person he used to resent. I think that is very beautiful. I want to be that Christian, the one who is most Christ-like – loving people who oppose you as well as staying firm in the Truth. I want to continue loving my liberal and bisexual friends while praying for their salvation. There is more to them than the sins they’ve committed – I need to focus on that. Everyone sins, but we are not defined by our sins, and we can always ask for forgiveness and repent. And most of all, there is no sin that is worse than another. Homosexual relations are not worse than thievery, slander, drunkenness, deceit, etc, and vice versa. They are all equal, but they are all sin. My friends are no worse than me because my sins are slander, deceit, envy, pride, sloth, and gluttony while theirs are indulging in homosexuality among other things. The very notion that one sin is worse than another is ridiculous. But my mission as a Christian is to repent my own sins while loving other sinners and perhaps even helping them find God.

    I will be following your blog and pray that I can be as loving towards my loved ones as you are to yours.

    God bless you.

    • Ada!!! How wonderful to have you here. Thank you for your comments. We are all on a journey, either toward or away from God. And unfortunately, some who wear the mantle of “Christian” whether purposefully or unknowingly, can push people further from knowing Him. I read about the atheist in TX too. Such a poignant picture of what “loving your enemies” looks like for us. Have you read the post “Why do you hate gays?” It’s some of my ideas about how we can better love our gay brothers and sisters without compromising God’s truth. https://askthebigot.com/2012/09/03/why-do-you-hate-gays/

      Also, the post “Aren’t people born gay?” speaks to much of what your friends experienced. https://askthebigot.com/2012/08/11/arent-people-born-gay/ So layered, so complex, and so painful for many. It calls for great sensitivity from all of us who are seeking to reveal a loving Father to all.

      Please make it a point to stop in and comment whenever something speaks to you. You are welcome here, friend!!

    • I am inspired by everyone’s passion and enthusiasm, even if it is not quite equal. This blog is beautiful and one day I pray that God will get us to all embrace Him that loves us so much, I quiver with fright that people have so much pain they can not see the hurtful paths they take, we all do it on some level. Fortunately through Christ He died for us and welcomes us to run to Him to let go of the pain and have the veil of poor choices that are unloving and twisted with self-service to help and love each other, all of us. Godspeed to you all never forget a sinner is one in pain, the pain is old and continues to grow, let us not grow it but heal it with love and real love, the one with truth and kindness as only God knows. And of course let us remember we are all sinners.

  9. You’re welcome! I just had to comment because after stumbling across this blog, I knew it would be very beneficial to me as a new believer seeking to properly love my friends even though I no longer agree with some of their views. http://www.bethinking.org is another website for Christians that is practically invaluable for me; it is so compelling and most of all, you can’t really argue with it, which is great when people come to you asking certain questions about Christianity. I had a rather lengthy discussion with my best friend (who is a profound atheist) yesterday after reading an article on that website that answers so many of the questions and doubts she has about believing in God. I know that I cannot argue her into faith – only God can truly make Himself known to her – but that wasn’t even my intention; I just wanted to really talk about these things to reveal some Truth to her, mostly about the existence of God/Truth of the bible, and let her know that some of the things that can be said against some “Christians” cannot be said for all Christians (true Christians, that is). And she’s quite open-minded, so we had a very intelligent, no-hurt-feelings discussion.

    Yes, I read both of those posts. The “Aren’t people born gay?” one resonated a lot with what I already learned about homosexual development. I agree that because there are quite a number of painful things involved in that development that it’s all the more reason for us to embrace our gay brothers and sisters with wide open arms. There are so many heartfelt testimonies of people leaving the lifestyle, people who have experienced so much pain but were freed by the truest love of Jesus Christ. Everyone should get to know that love, because the love of Christ is the most unconditional love a human can experience. But in the meantime, it is our duty as followers of Christ to show others just what his love looks like. It cannot replace his love, but it must be a good example of it, because we cannot force Christ on people; he is a gentleman, so he wants people to come to him of their own accord.

    Yes, I will definitely continue to comment on posts that speak to me. I thank you for having this blog!

  10. Firstly, THANK YOU for this Christ-like, non-bigoted blog. How refreshing!

    Secondly, I have a question. One of my dearest friends of over a decade came out a few years ago. I have treated her no differently (she is like a sister to me!), yet have never wavered in my beliefs on gay marriage or homosexuality. We have both been so open minded and honest about it to each other, never upsetting each other…we value the friendship so much! I have always listened to her when she talks about her partners, never saying anything judgmental but always taking an interest in her life, because she is important to me. However, she recently became engaged to her partner and asked me to be a bridesmaid in the ceremony. After a LOT of thought and prayer and tears, I told her: as much as it breaks my heart to say it, I cannot be a bridesmaid. She is very hurt and upset about it. She is posting thing on my FB wall about supporting Starbucks and Apple by buying their products, but not supporting her by being in her wedding. She is correct, I do not boycott brands according to what they do or don’t support. Now I’m questioning myself–is this hypocritical? I think it may be to some degree. I’m at a loss at how to deal with this outside of a lot of prayer.

    • Hello new friend. First let me say how grateful I am that you found this blog. Second, if no one has told you this, “YOU ARE DOING GREAT!” Thank you for loving your friend faithfully and doing so while you hold firmly to God’s revealed truth. Sometimes it easy, because the people in my life who are gay (or non-believers for that matter) are so wonderful so loving them is a no-brainer. But sometimes how to be in relationship and stay true to God’s principles is messy. And many of us are tempted to just withdraw instead of living in the mess. But the salt doesn’t do any good when it is sitting in the shaker. So if we are to be the royal priesthood that we are called to be, we must get in the world and at the same time “keep ourselves unspotted” by the world. Way to walk that fine, biblical line Kat.

      Another blogger has posed the same question to me: “would you attend a gay wedding?” It will hopefully be my next post to be completed during pre-school hours next week. But as a teaser I will say this: the answer to that question I think depends on one’s role. I may attend a secular ceremony if going to the wedding meant “I love you.” But often times (at least in our church) there are moments during wedding ceremonies where the congregation acts as a witness and states their support and endorsement. I would tell my friends that I would be there because I love them, not because I endorse a new model for families. Likely after this frank conversation, they may not want me there anyway. But there are situations where I would go. I guess the question for you is, what does being a bridesmaid mean? Usually it means that your role is to be a supporter and champion of the bride as… a wife to her wife. So I understand why you are drawing the line.

      If it were a “Christian” ceremony, I wouldn’t go under any circumstances. That would be lying about God and twisting His very clearly spelled out prescriptions about what marriage is. However, I also would not attend the Christian wedding of a man who cheated on his wife and was now marrying his girlfriend. (My husband was asked to officiate one such ceremony last year. His refusal was somewhat shocking by some who viewed is a not very nice.)

      I single-handedly keep Starbucks afloat. Well, not really because I usually just order iced coffees and then milk them by getting free refills. But, I go there whenever I meet with someone or have time to myself. (And let me just say that Jesus shows up at Starbucks!) I have no problem with them or Apple or Target. Because the Christian story is not theirs to tell. It’s mine. And it will be told by God’s children who are living faithfully to His word and going into the mess of this needy world with His truth.

      Godspeed, friend! Let’s talk more.

      PS, if you do get a picture of that knee-hold on the pole of a stop sign, please post a pic for me to see!

    • Kat, I finally got around to writing that post. And as I chewed on it, my position shifted. I thought through whether or not Jesus would attend a secular ceremony where no one professed to be following Him. Obviously he fellowshiped with and loved those who were living contrary to the law. He reached out to corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes. But would he go to an event that endorsed excessive tax collection? Would sit passively when someone hired a prostitute? I came to the conclusion that the purpose of attending a wedding is to endorse and support not just the people involved, but to endorse the relationship between the two people. I should strive to love and support my gay friends, but that I could not be honest about my beliefs at a gay wedding. This is all fleshed out in the post, as well as the question of our role as consumer. And… I wouldn’t condemn a Christian who did feel that they could attend a gay wedding and be true to their convictions.

      Thanks for the question, friend. I hope you are well.


  11. Here is one more important verse spoken by Jesus:

    “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. (Matthew 10:34-40 NIV)

  12. Thank you for stopping by my blog… mostly because I now know about yours. Seriously – I can’t wait to follow your thoughts through your writing. May God be glorified in your pursuit of Him!

    • Thank you friend. The message about fear on your blog is so relevant. I know that it is a regular fight for me to make decisions based on God’s principles and not what I fear will happen if I obey God’s principles. Your post was timely.

  13. I’m a new reader of yours, and an atheist (as you know, after stopping by my blog today). I’m sure I will often disagree with you because of fundamental differences between us, but I’m so glad you’re willing to have conversations like these–I’m committed to conversing with gentleness and respect.

  14. So edified and inspired by your words! You are a beautiful writer, and more importantly, a beautiful Christian. Your journey fills me with so much hope, and reminds me that “for God, nothing will be impossible!” Thank you seems so inadequate, but that and my prayers for your strength and perseverance are all I can offer you. Thank you for your bravery in a world where it is so desperately needed. Thank you for your coherence and willingness to articulate very hard truths to a hard headed people! Thank you for your faithfulness. God bless you richly.

  15. Katy,

    I found your site through your “Dear Justice Kennedy” letter published today by “Public Discourse” (The Witherspoon Institute).

    I thank God for your courage and clarity. I thank God that you have this site to patiently explain why this issue is so important.

    I also thank God that you based your appeal to Justice Kennedy on the needs of children and not the religious liberty rights of Christians. I cringe when I hear fellow Christians talk about religious liberty when the subject of so-called “same-sex marriage” comes up. Religious liberty is about our needs, but we should be seeking the good of others. And you have rightly pointed out that the needs that ought to most concern us are the needs of children. They are the only legitimate basis for the government to be involved in the marriage business in the first place. And there is only one kind of marriage that has the potential to produce children.

    You made so many insightful comments in your letter, but let me quote just one:

    “If it is undisputed social science that children suffer greatly when they are abandoned by their biological parents, when their parents divorce, when one parent dies, or when they are donor-conceived, then how can it be possible that they are miraculously turning out “even better!” when raised in same-sex-headed households? Every child raised by “two moms” or “two dads” came to that household via one of those four traumatic methods.”

    This is but one of the implications of today’s societal rush to redefine marriage that society is failing to think through. I thank God you are bringing such implications to the attention of others. Godspeed.

  16. I had the occasion tonight to read “Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent”. I had never heard of your website, but after reading your article, I had to find out more about askthebigot.com. I’ve just started checking out this site, but am truly interested in your Christian views and the life you spent growing up in a heterosexual family and then a gay family. As a child of parents who divorced when I was nine, your words ring true for me when growing up, as I had a one parent influence for many years. What rings true for me now is how important it is to have two parents which consist of a fatherly figure and a motherly figure. This became so apparent when I became a parent myself and the realization of how important a father figure was for my children, one that I missed out on for over twenty-five years. I intend to read further and perhaps contribute to the conversation. Thank you.

  17. Katy,

    I was introduced to your “Dear Justice Kennedy” letter via a friend who posted it on fb. It caught my eye, more so my heart because I too am a child of a gay parent. My father was/is an ordained pastor. For many years he was actively leading, but for many more, has not. No one knows the word so thoroughly as my father does, no one. Throughout his lifetime (yes, his entire lifetime) struggle with homosexuality, he got married to my mother, they had 3 bio children and adopted their 4th. We grew up in a strict home not missing a Sunday or Wednesday. Attended a private non-denom school and were brought up in the word. In my teen years (I’m now 33), they divorced. We, by no choice of our own, but his, were abandoned by our father for 10/11 years. It was really bad. I felt as if I was left under the rubble of an explosion. How does a teen deal with all of that on their own and come out unscathed? They don’t. I know. The scars will never go away.

    I could probably go on for many many paragraphs about MY story, our story. But I just want to thank you for your letter. It resonated with me deeply. I have longed so, to know of others who were of the same experience. The same struggle. To know Christ is truth, yet be up against the world in opinion is so very difficult. This topic and stance are so very hard to defend. I am not ashamed, but it has been a lonely path to walk. I know people who are gay, but I know NO ONE, other than my siblings, who have a story like ours. I love my father dearly, but I do not agree with his life’s choices.

    In your letter you reference 5 others of similar stance? Are their stories also documented as yours is? I would love to read them.

    I cannot wait to be able to have the time to read more of your posts as this is the first I’ve been here.
    Your letter was so well written, I want you to know it was so very appreciated.

    Thank you so much,

    P.S. Can I find you on fb to follow your public posts?

  18. Just discovered your blog this evening. Haven’t read much, but what I’ve read is so refreshing. What a Jesus-like tone of grace and truth, gentleness and respect. How missing from most public discourse (any side on any issue) that is.
    How different a tone we could set If we followers of Christ were, like He was, walking with so much love and integrity that what we stood FOR was what others most noticed, not what we are against.

  19. Isn’t all this somewhat tiring?

    Couldn’t you use that energy towards something up-lifting – for whomever – in your life?

    Perhaps there are perks – right wing funds – flowing into your coffers. Maybe this is how you make a living.

    There are more positive, loving ways.

    • If it’s so tiring to YOU, then why are you here? This IS uplifting to so many struggling with the same family “issues”. You can rwad so in the comments. Clearly you are not one of those many, so take YOUR negativity elsewhere.

  20. Just found your blog – by accident – and impressed with both your ideology and your writing. You have a remarkably good way of expressing yourself! Thank you!

  21. THIS is what I have been trying to find, this balanced position hat neither whiplashes Left or Right, faithfulness to Jesus and the Kingdom that is coming. True repentance and life. You’re an example to me Miss Bigot, lol!

  22. Greetings

    I read your opinion posted on USA Today entitled “Children like me need a voice in gay marriage debate”, and I was curious how a person whose mother is in a committed relationship with another women for 30 years would be against gay marriage. Seems counter intuitive. So I did some research and I found your blog. Now I understand. In reading your “Who is this Christian ‘bigot’” page I discovered that you believe that God is against Gay marriage. This would trump all other arguments you presented in your USA Today editorial, yet it wasn’t mentioned. The arguments you did present were, I thought, easily refuted for their lack of substance and consistency by responders in the USA Today article. If you know what God wants and believe our laws should reflect that, make your case accordingly.

    Take care, Jim

      • Her (The Christian Bigot) basic contention is that gay couples cannot provide the same nurturing environment as a traditional family can, and children feel a life-long loss for their mom and dad if not raised by them.

        Flawed assumptions in this contention:
        • A traditional family is always nurturing: What about alcoholism, wife beating, child abuse, poverty, etc. There are no laws precluding straight people from getting married. For instance Charles Manson can get married. LACKS SUBSTANCE: obviously a traditional family is not necessarily a loving family. LACKS CONSISTANCY: She is not advocating other negatively perceived parenting issues be illegal.
        • To prevent children from having a life-long loss, keep them with their parents: So no divorce, no giving you child up for adoption. LACKS SUBSTANCE: she can’t speak for every child, there are many children of Gay parents who disagree with her LACKS CONSISTANCY: She should be trying to make divorce and giving up your child for adoption illegal as well.
        • Every child has the possibility of a mom and a dad: Unfortunately parents die, or the parents, for whatever reason, cannot raise their child and give them up. LACKS SUBSTANCE: Obviously not all children can have a traditional family, where do these kids go?
        • It is better for a child to not be raise by gay parents: True it is easier to be a straight couple in America, then a gay one. There is a lot of inherent prejudice towards gay people. It’s also easier to be rich, white, and protestant. LACKS SUBSTANCE: There is so much that goes into the successful raising of a children that this distinction cannot be asserted, Loving parents would be the most important. LACKS CONSISTANCY: So why just preclude Gay couples?

        • Actually, the opposition’s contention is that same sex parents, but virtue of eliminating the other sex as a biological parent that is also as equally committed to the opposite sex as to the offspring, cannot physically, intellectually or emotionally provide the full spectrum of care required to raise fit offspring, all other things being equal (because, you do know, that ‘gay’ couples will exhibit at least the same, if not more, individual or relationship dysfunction as any ‘straight’ couple would) that are sufficiently prepared to compete, and survive in a predominantly opposite sex pairing-bonding environment, that which has been determined to be the best possible natural condition as determined by millions of years of evolution.

          One may use religion or biology to support their logical argument against SSM.

          What is it the gay lobby uses to support their advocacy for SSM?

          • Jae,

            Well said. While we are waiting for Jim to answer, please allow me to add yet another argument to the religious and biological ones you have provided. Let’s call it the political argument.

            Society knows that to the degree that the mother and father who conceive a child do not provide the proper two-decade care necessary for bringing the child to independent adulthood, society will be burdened (the additional costs and risks associated with single-parent children and orphans is well documented). Therefore, to minimize that burden, society is well within its rights to regulate and incentivize male-female relationships which, by their very nature, have the potential to produce a child. By contrast, society has no no compelling interest in regulating and incentivizing any other romantic relationships, and to do so would constitute an unwarranted expansion of government power.

            Like you, I am waiting for the logical argument from the homosexual lobby for the changes in law that they want. All I have heard from them so far is mantras and emotion.

          • Jim & Mike

            I’m not sure if I’ve seen either of you around here before. If this is true, then allow me to welcome you both to the blog.

          • Mike- ditto, and excellent socio-political argument.

            I don’t know about other SSM opponents, but, I’ve yet to observe even one SSM advocate capable of supporting their position with anything but emotion- here at ATB, or anyplace else. Even when I play ‘devils advocate’, I cannot formulate a logical argument in support of SSM, or redefining natural marriage to accommodate any of the other myriad relationships that aren’t One Male + One Female, only.

            We’re all in trouble when only self-centered emotions drive any ideology that will be forced upon a free society.

          • “society is well within its rights to regulate and incentivize male-female relationships”

            – OK this is where you lose me. If you truly believe that male-female marriages or relationships will be “in danger” if the government isn’t giving them specific special rights then I question your beliefs on what sexual attraction is. If you think there are people out there who choose to be involved in an opposite-sex relationship solely for the government benefits attached to them, who would otherwise be in same-sex relationships, then I think you’re simply insane. Giving benefits and protections to same sex couples will do absolutely nothing to dis-incentivize opposite-sex relationships, and all of the data from Massachusetts, from The Netherlands, from Spain, etc. shows that when same sex marriage has no negative effect on opposite-sex parenting or marriage rates.

            If you’re truly worried that giving gays the same rights and benefits is the only thing keeping straights from turning gay or ensuring that they raise children, then obviously you don’t have a whole lot of faith in opposite-sex marriages.

          • ZetaZed,

            You do not understand the argument I made.* Please go back and re-read it.

            (*You are attributing a position to me that I don’t hold, and you don’t seem to have grasped the position that I do hold. What rights and positions given by society to married couples are given in society’s self-interest in avoiding the burdens – economic and otherwise – that will bear down upon it if the couple splits, or otherwise abandons the child, before the child becomes an independent and productive citizen. That is, the rights and benefits have nothing to do with activities – e.g. homosexuality – which could never produce a child. If you’re going to give the rights and benefits to relationships that have nothing to do with procreation, what principled reason will you have to deny marriage to threesomes, quartets, BFF’s, and golfing buddies? For that matter, what principled reason would you offer for denying marriage to a man and his dog? Or a man and a fence post? Or a man and 27 fence posts? What is the logical justification for having the right to change the gender requirement in marriage but not any of the other requirements – e.g. that it be a certain number, that it be humans only, that it be humans only of a certain age, that it not be a father and daughter?)

            As Jae asks, where is the SS”M” proponent who has a logical justification for SS”M”? The equal protection argument – the closest things to a logical argument – denies the stark and obvious reality that homosexual activity does not lead to procreation, and it is the potential for procreation that lies at the foundation of society’s rationale for marriage law.

          • Mike, your argument would make a lot more sense if the only rights we gave to married couples were procreative in nature, however they are not. There are over 1,100 separate rights and protections offered to married couples, and few of them are procreative in nature, the vast majority are legal and financial in nature. The rights we give to marriage have nothing to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality, they have to do with granting couples federal and state recognition of their partnerships.

            And gays have children. I know they don’t naturally but they raise them, they have previous marriages, they adopt, they go through IVF/other birth aids (which are treated on this site, quite frankly, like they were abortion procedures or Nazi experimentation) there are hundreds of thousands of children being raised in some part by same-sex parenting. Do these families not deserve the protection that comes with divorce or early death?

            The whole notion that granting same sex marriage will force society to recognize all relationships as marriages is simply unfounded and paranoid. It has taken the homosexual lobby, arguably the most well-constructed and effective lobby in American politics, 20 years now to get to the point where the supreme court will hear their case. It has taken decades of public support and changing of opinion to grant gays equal marriage rights, I seriously doubt that polygamists (who have tried that same method and failed repeatedly) will achieve the same success. That’s because there’s a far bigger difference in removing the sexual/gender restrictions on marriage than to add an entire person to the relationship. We can grant same sex marriage by simply changing a few pronouns in marital legal code, but in order to implement polygamy we have to completely rewrite it. I’m not saying it’s wrong to rewrite it, but the argument has to be a lot stronger, and there really is none since polygamy is inherently a misogynistic practice (at least how it is practiced in 99% of the world which has it)

            I won’t even touch on your inanimate objects/animals assertion. You seem like a bright enough person to understand what the word “consent” means, please act like it in the future.

            I have provided Jae with many logical SSM (real cute about the apostrophes jackass) arguments, and you can find any number of rationality-based SSM arguments anywhere online. You simply disagree with them. When I tell you that the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment grants the right for similarly-situated couples to share in the same benefits regardless of gender or sexual orientation, you simply reject that claim out of hand. Well, sorry but that’s what’s winning court cases and overturning bans, so obviously you have a different opinion of the 13th Amendment than most district courts.

          • ZetaZed,

            The “legal and financial” rights granted to married couples are because of their procreative potential. Governments are not trying to “be nice” to married couples – they’re trying to avoid the problems that accrue from unattended children.

            By adopting a child, the homosexual couple denies the child that to which the child has a right: a mother and father.

            We should deny other arrangements their right to be called marriage because they don’t have as effective a political lobby as the LGBT? I guess fairness and equal protection were never the issue – it was all about wielding political power more effectively than the other guy – “might makes right” and all that. Your true colors are showing.

            You can say that a fence post cannot give “consent,” but why is the “consent” aspect of the marriage definition sacrosanct if the words “husband and wife” are not? This is Jae’s point, which you continue to miss: If you’re going to change the definition of marriage you need a logical reason to do so, and part of that reason needs to explain why one part of the definition is eligible for change but other parts are not.

            I wasn’t trying to be “cute” by using the term SS”M.” I just refuse to join the Orwellian atmosphere surrounding the issue. SSM is an oxymoron; the quote marks just indicate that I recognize it to be so. You can call a cow a horse, but if you think that makes it a horse, then you don’t know much about either cows or horses.

            You invoke the equal protection argument because you have, in Orwellian fashion, refused to recogize the painfully obvious reality that homosexual couples are not “similarly-situated.”

          • “The “legal and financial” rights granted to married couples are because of their procreative potential.” – Simply incorrect. This is fundamentally where your argument fails, there are over 1,100 protections and benefits granted in marriage, and few of them are procreative in nature. We do not restrict these rights or benefits to those couples that can procreate. And again, gays have children, those children deserve these rights and protections as well. Governments aren’t trying to “be nice” I realize, but they are trying to incentivize families and gays have families, and many wish to have families and know that their marriage rights will allow for that

            If you think my argument was “might is right” then you didn’t understand it. I brought up the LGBT lobby by showing how difficult it was for even them to get these rights, so obviously the notion that if they get these rights it will simply be passed onto polygamists or bestiality is a false premise. It simply won’t happen. And I never said polygamists aren’t free to petition for change but their road is much steeper, as I said because polygamy is inherently a sexist institution.

            Jae doesn’t seem to understand that “changing marriage” will not remove consent and no one is calling for consent ot be removed since we live in a free society wherein people should be free to consent to decisions about their lives. Those that cannot consent cannot enter in these unions. You are being wholly disingenuous by acting like removal of the gender restrictions of marriage will completely change the entire institution. It won’t, it will simply allow for 3-6% of the tax-paying population to be included. I am advocating for very specific parts of marriage law to be changed, namely pronouns and gender discrimination. That’s it, nobody is saying anything else about it needs to be changed, just like how nobody said that allowing interracial couples to marry would remove consent.

            Two non-related co-habitating individuals sharing a household, finances, expenditures and child-rearing abilities? Sounds like “similarly-situated” to me and every single court that has taken on these cases in the last 5 years, which is why your side keeps losing in court. You’re allowed to have your own opinion of the 13th Amendment but time and time again it gets proven wrong in Federal and state courts, and the SCOTUS will simply be the final nail in the anti-gay marriage coffin, at least in this country. Then we can move onto issues that actually matter

          • ZetaZed,

            You continue to be unresponsive to the argument I made. You are addressing yourself to straw men, not to the actual arguments I am making. Whether that is intentional or unintentional, I cannot say. However, I cannot continue on the merry-go-round with you.

            I will say this in closing: you may be right that SCOTUS will rule in favor of SS”M.” However, that will by no means be the end of the debate. In fact, that decision, should it be handed down as you expect, will eventually takes its place with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson as Supreme Court decisions which call for shame rather than pride. In fact,the only coffin that will have been nailed will be America’s, for, alongside Roe v. Wade, it would stand as another signature moment in defiance of nature and nature’s God – secular America shaking its fist at the God upon whom its founders once humbly called.

          • OK whatever Mike, take your preaching nonsense elsewhere, we don’t create laws based on what your silly “god” told us in some dusty old tome.

          • Thank for welcoming me to the board. I’ll be brief. The bottom line is there is no proof that any of the current legal family structures: One Man + One Women, One Women, or One Man would always raise a child better than One Man + One Man or One Women + One Women would. So it is in the best interest of children to have all the options available to them, don’t preclude possibly great parents just because of their sexual orientation. In closing, if something terrible should happened to me and my wife. I know some wonderful gay couples who I would trust to raise my daughter. Take care – Jim

          • ZetaZed,

            After reviewing the conversation between yourself and Mike, I must admit, Mike is right. You are ignoring key parts of his argument, specifically two points.

            One, if marriage is not tied to the procreative potential of the relationship, what are the parameters? You list consent and adulthood, but if those are your only parameters, then you’re declaring your support for incestous relationships, polygamy, and polyandry. Furthermore, you don’t answer the more important question, why are consent and adulthood considered the only parameters?

            Two, you’re ignoring the principle behind the financial incentives given to marriage couples, which is to support procreation. Yes, the incentives themselves don’t list procreation as either a requirement or as a specific reason, but it’s quite clear that is their purpose because they were only granted to an institution that is the primary vehicle for procreation. As an analogy, you may as well be saying that the American Civil War was over States’ Rights and completely ignoring the Slavery issue, which was the trigger for the rights debate.

            Finally, you are incorrect that there is no negative repercussions on political states that encourage same-sex marriage. It has a negative impact on heterosexual marriage rights, which in turn adds to the social cost that a state must deal with due to the consequences of increased crime and poverty.


            There is in fact proof that heterosexual married spouses is still the golden standard for raising children. Single parents have long been documented for their weaknesses and early research suggests that same-sex marriage is just as harmful. While an individual homosexual couple may be quite loving and emotionally supporting, even they will cause unintentional damage to children they raise.

          • @Sam

            I completely deny that allowing homosexual marriage means I must support any other form of marriage. Gay people have proven themselves to be vital parts of our society, they make up a huge voting block, they have widespread public support, I don’t see how that is in any way common to polyamorous relationships, which are very different in that they involve unions of more than two people. You would truly have to rewrite marriage law entirely instead of simply removing pronouns here and there or gender/sexuality based discrimination. Polyamorous relationships, as they are practiced in 100% of the world where they are practiced, are inherently sexist institutions, with many women to one man and never the corollary, so there’s no reason the government would support an inherently sexist system, which is the main reason it was struck down in the 1890s. So that really just leaves incestuous relationships, and if you can’t understand why the government wouldn’t want to support them then you’re truly lost to this debate and you just wish to play Devil’s advocate. Homosexual relationships are at least designed for a couple outside of their family to generate wealth for the state, at the very least, which incestuous couples do not. Consent and adulthood are merely the foundations, it is is from there that the government decides which relationships to honor and I see absolutely no reason why gender or sex-based discrimination is needed from that point.

            Now that I’ve moved past the constantly brought up and idiotic “slippery slope arguments,” let’s attack the rest of your post. Your analogy to the Civil War is terrible. All soldiers in the Civil War were fighting for the same sides but not everyone who gets involved in marriage is required to procreate, and that very fact alone makes any procreation-based argument fall flat on its face. Until we restrict marriage to only those couples that can procreate or will procreate or sign a form intending to procreate (we have never done any of those things and never would conceive of it) then we cannot use procreation as the reason to deny gays the right to marry.

            And finally, please go on and name those detriments to heterosexual marriage, I’m all ears. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for a decade, Massachusetts for 11 years and many Western European countries for about that long as well, such as Spain. Please point me to the negative outcomes to heterosexual marriage based on their acceptance of gay marriage.

          • ZetaZed,

            Granted, you are correct that you must support those other practices. Your arguments seem to focus on the possible social harms that polyamorous relationships and incestous relationships would produce. I agree with your viewpoint, except on the minor point about wealth-generation.

            If that’s the crux of your argument, if I could produce definitive evidence that homosexual relationships also produce social ills, would your revise your position?

            Perhaps a different angle will help. I play a game called Warhammer 40,000. Lots of rules, but lots of fun. Sometimes, we players get rules that are unhelpfully vague, and we’ve developed two acronyms that sum up possible interpretations. RAW is Rules As Written. Despite some obvious issues, this interpretation simply goes with the technical wording. RAI is Rules As Intended focuses on the context of the rule and supports the spirit of the rule, even if it doesn’t completely gel with the wording.

            You’re using a RAW interpretation of marriage benefits and restrictions. “Marriage benefits only the male-female monogamous relationship with no real purpose since procreation is not one of the requirements.”

            You’re ignoring the RAI interpretation. “Heterosexual, monogamous relationship is the only relationship that offers the best possible foundation to beginning and raising a family. Hence, it is encouraged with benefits, despite not officially requiring procreation to access those benefits.”

            Which ties into your last paragraph/request: “Please point me to the negative outcomes to heterosexual marriage based on their acceptance of gay marriage.”

            Here are some articles:



          • Zeta Zed ~

            Hope this comment ends up in the right place!

            You said, “Polyamorous relationships, as they are practiced in 100% of the world where they are practiced, are inherently sexist institutions, with many women to one man and never the corollary …”

            I’m not sure where you live, but you are wrong. I am an former lesbian-identified & then bisexual-identified woman who also lived polyamorously for a number of years. In the Queer (as they prefer to be called) communities of which I was a part, polyamory was a beloved practise for women of all sexual identities, as well as men. I myself had multiple partners of multiple genders, & my dream was to marry both a woman & a man. I know absolutely *scads* of women involved with multiple men & loads of folks of all gender-identities who take these relationships very seriously & consider themselves to be married. They would *love* to have their relationships normalized, validated, celebrated, &, finally, incentivized, & they are just waiting for a precedent. If you truly think it is otherwise, it must be due to your small social circle.

            The “Queers” I know & love (& again, that is the term they prefer to be called) are just chomping at the bit to give a public & unapologetic burial to all traditional ideas of gender, romantic relationships, & marriage, for what they believe to be a superior ethic & freedom. They in fact see this as integrally tied *to* feminism, rather than “inherently sexist” as you presume. What you say may be true in other countries, but it is not so in the U.S.A., nor in many European nations today.

            If there is no absolute truth on which to stand, then it’s *all* relative, & it’s your “truth” (i.e., viewpoint) against mine & who has the most lobbying power.

        • Hey Jim ~

          I think people have already responded to much of your concern by saying that, all things being equal, an opposite-sex couple is better for parenting than a same-sex couple, by virtue of having both sexes available.

          Regarding your second point, Katy is not “trying to make same-sex marriage illegal.” She has been trying to prevent the definition of legal marriage from being altered to include same-sex couplings so that they would be considered to be exactly the same kind of relationships from a legal standpoint. That is quite a different thing.

          People of the same sex have already been able to have commitment ceremonies, live together, & raise children together. It hasn’t been illegal to do these things, & Katy isn’t trying to make it so. She is simply saying that the government should not legally redefine marriage simply to financially incentivize these couplings.

          Financially incentivizing opposite-sex couplings is already the method in place to discourage divorce, so Katy doesn’t need to lobby for it. I doubt you actually know what Katy does in terms of trying to encourage parents to keep their own children, but if people do give up their children for adoption, it would still be most ideal for them to go to loving opposite-sex homes, where they will have the benefit of both a mother & a father. As it stands, Katy may work in these arenas as well, but even if she doesn’t, that doesn’t mean she should abandon this cause. There is only so much activism a person can attend to, especially when busy raising four children as she is.

          Regarding your third point, it’s true that all children do not get the luxury of being raised by both biological parents. But if one dies, the other has the option to marry a new opposite-sex partner, so that the children can still get the benefit of both sexes for parents, & she/he will financially benefit from this. That’s the idea. If both parents die, a loving, married, opposite-sex coupling should have the priority of adopting them, because that is the best available situation.

          Regarding your fourth point, Katy never said that only same-sex couples should be precluded from raising children. She is advocating that the term “marriage” should not be legally redefined to include same-sex couples, indicating that they are the same as opposite-sex ones.

          Lastly, same-sex couples do not have to try to have marriage redefined to get benefits & rights. There are many states that already have had domestic partner benefits already, for example. Same-sex couples don’t need to pretend they are the same as opposite-sex couples. They are not. I know from experience. I am a former lesbian with seventeen years of same-sex relationships behind me, & I am now married to a man. It absolutely is not the same.

          • Hi KP, thank you for your comments. Here’s where we differ.

            Per your point, “all things being equal”. All things are never equal. Even if it was true that straight couples, on average, are better parents than gay couples. You can’t use that to deny gay people their constitutional rights.

            Per your recurring point that gay couples already have the needed rights, so they don’t need the right to marry. What gay people have is a hodge-podge of different laws in different states that attempt to give them the same rights as marriage. This has resulted in gay people not always having legal access to their partner, their child, and their property. Separate but equal is not equal.

            Society’s values change over time, as we the people in the society learn more. We now know that being gay for most people is something that they were born with, and as straight people know and socialize more with gay people, they realize that gay people are just people. This was reflected in the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

          • Hi Jim!

            Here’s where we differ. I don’t think redefining marriage is a constitutional right. The constitution gives all consenting adults the right to marry. And marriage is between a man & a woman, by definition. Gay people always have been able to marry. Several years ago, I was identified as a gay person who opted to try out a relationship with a man & ended up getting married. (And I am so glad I did, tho’ I *never* thought that would be possible!) But gay people decided to pursue legally redefining marriage to include same-sex couplings. That infers that they are the same as opposite-sex couplings, which they are not. They are distinctly different.

            Now I am not making a claim as to whether same-sex couples necessarily have their needed rights, as you stated. I don’t have a problem with gay people lobbying for what they believe to be their rights & working within the law to increase them. That is democratic process. As I said, my problem is with legally redefining marriage. I realize that gay people & their allies generally disagree with me on this, & they have effectively gotten what they wanted.

            Being gay is not genetic. Check out twin studies. If sexual orientation were in our DNA, then there would be a 100% correlation of sexual orientation between identical twins. There is not. If people come out of the womb as gay ~ a fact that can never be proven, since it is definitely not in the DNA, & you can’t interview infants about sexual orientation ~ it still involves environmental factors. Sexual impressions start VERY, VERY young & are deeply entrenched. This is evidenced by studies of all kinds of sexual identity variations. I myself was attracted to females at a very young age, & lived that way most of my life, but it’s now crystal clear to me that I was not born that way & that it was not immutable. I could actually map out for you all the factors that converged in my embracing that as an identity & way of life, then moving out of, & finally overcoming it altogether, in great joy & freedom.

            I know that gay people are “just people” ~ since I WAS one, & probably 85% of my friends are queer-identified. We are all “just people” regardless of our circumstances, identities, etc. Yet it’s not a reason to legally redefine what marriage is. But, you are right, 5 out of 9 judges thought it was, so here we are. It has not changed my convictions tho’.

            Take care, Jim.

  23. Hi. Serious question, I’m pretty sure there was a mention in one of your posts that you know a samesex couple who has adopted a special needs child abroad. (If not, sorry) My question is why is that not acceptable? I’m very sure it was noted in a pretty positive way them adopting.
    Also, How can you have gay friends, have meaningful relationships with them, but constantly advocate for them not being able to adopt,marry, and are fine with open discrimination in the workplace, housing, etc?

    • I guess its OK to dis the Christian God, but, we had better toe that line whenever we dare tippy-toe around the leftists’ ‘gods’.

      Nothing says hypocrite (and ‘bang, you just lost your argument’) as loudly and rudely as the leftist-anarchist lobby’s lame attempts at defending their irrationality.

      Thanks for failing at hiding your own incredibly bigoted spots, there, faux-leopards.

  24. ZetaZed’s reply to Sam demonstrates that the SS”M” argument is not a plea for marriage equality but rather a plea for special rights to be granted to homosexual couples. They want the marriage definition to be modified enough to accommodate them, but not enough to accommodate others. In the name of equal rights they are seeking unique rights.

    As for what harm comes to heterosexual society after the granting of gay marriage in jurisdictions like Massachusetts, see this video: https://youtu.be/2ZXzUpzHLkA

    • ZZ’s latest attempt at defending the thoroughly unnatural monogamous union of same sex individuals is so wrought with falsehoods, sentence by sentence, and illogical conclusions, that one would need to respond to what amounts to lies, distortions and pure insanity, line by line.

      Here is all we need to know about same sex monogamy- it is entirely absent in the natural world, within and from which humans evolved, and that fact in and of itself is sufficient for society to reject it.

      Arguing the benefits of SSM is as fruitless as arguing how best to nurture unicorns. They, too, are a mere figment of the human imagination.

      • Jae,

        While I am happy that someone is aware of the naturalistic argument, you tend to hurt your own arguments with the insults and the flanderization. Case in point, ZetaZed’s argument hinges on a couple of assumptions and poor conclusions. That does not mean ZZ is lying or purposely distorting or filled with pure insanity. Let’s give our debate opponents the benefit of the doubt before assuming the worst.

        • SS- no, sorry, ZZ has had too any chances to correct ZZ’s statements regarding intentional distortions of my comments, and others, as well as bold-faced lies regarding opposition commenters intentions and beliefs. It is not an insult to call a leopard as leopard, nor a lie a lie. I maintain- ZZ is purposefully distorting my and others comments and statements and making illogical conclusions based upon these lies and distortions. I make these statements with no animus toward ZZ, personally. Emotion does not make for honest analyses, or debate.

          I am not PC since that social anomaly does not occur in nature, either, as nature must perceive reality as it is, not as an individual (or population) wishes it to be, for the very sake of its existence.

          We can call the comments out, without attacking the commenter, as I have done.

          My contributions are not meant to assuage SSM proponents or aggravate SM opponents, they are simple fact-based principles of nature. Therefore, my argument, regardless of my ‘style’, is factually incapable of being “hurt”.

          I am ready to give SSM proponents the benefit of the doubt as soon as I witness one argument that isn’t based upon lies, distortions and/or pure emotional blackmail.

          But, thank you for your own observations/opinion of my ‘style’. I will keep your comment in mind for future comments.

          We are all capable of improvement, to be sure.

          • I’m done dealing with this idiot. Your arguments concerning what is “natural” mean nothing in terms of marital law. If the Federal government is involved in giving benefits and protections and rights to people based on their marital status then they cannot refuse those rights on sex or gender based discrimination. That is not special pleading and you people simply do not understand the equal protection clause.

            I’m done. You people can rant and rave about how illogical my arguments are on this comment section all you like. The simple fact is that you have lost this argument, gay marriage will be federally legal very soon now, and you are done. Find a new thing to be pissed off at because gay marriage is a harmless extension of rights and protections that we all pay the federal government for, not just straight couples. Sorry we can’t keep up the tradition of Christian homophobia, but we don’t live in a world decided by your desert sky fairies.

          • How ironic that an individual who cannot discern male from female, the natural and historic meaning of ‘marriage’, and the principles of biology feels ’empowered’ to refer to an opponent as “idiot”.

            And, this dear readers, is just one example of the ‘love and tolerance’ we’ll be seeing from this highly disordered and radicalized “gay” (aren’t we all just so happy, harmless and loving?) lobby.

            How very Alinsky-ite.

          • You are an idiot. I never said there aren’t differences between the genders or that these differences shouldn’t be highlighted, I reject that these differences inherently must be adhered to in order to build a family or raise a child. You are the loudmouth fool, and yes an idiot, who uses unscientific, emotion-fueled arguments that have no basis in rational fact, and no cited sources or peer-reviewed studies as support for your outlandish, ludicrous arguments in favor of gender-based discrimination of marital benefits.

            I never said I argued with love or tolerance. I do not tolerate bigotry and I do not tolerate anti-gay animus, which every single one of your posts is absolutely dripping with. You can play your victim card all you want, you anti-gay people seem to be clinging to that card now that all your other ones have failed (which is why we only hear about Christian bakers or florists from you people as if somehow these people are in actual danger)

    • I’m not watching a 20 minute video by some idiot ranting and raving about the natural family. I want stats. Show me that the divorce rates among heterosexuals increase with gay marriage, show me that heterosexuals don’t enter marriage contracts with gay marriage legal; show me any measurable statistic that proves gay marriage legalization in any demonstrable way brings any negative to marriage statistics. Because I have searched long and wide and I simply do not find any

      Is there going to be friction with Christian services? Absolutely. Does that mean we shouldn’t extend marriage rights to all consenting non-related adult couples? No.

      Sorry Mike but you’re hardly unbiased concerning how Christian-y your blog is. It’s all well and good to be Christian and believe in your sky fairy, but you simply do not get to decide the rules of society for the rest of us

  25. Further to the video on the post-SS”M” environment in Massachusetts I posted above, here is a short essay by a Canadian lawyer about what life has been like for heterosexuals since Canada’s legalization of SS”M” in 2005. (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/same-sex-marriage-and-the-persecution-of-christians-in-canada)

    Assurances that the granting of marital status to homosexual couples will bring no harm to heterosexuals may be well-intended in some cases, but, if so, they are naive. Heterosexuals who think that approval of SS”M” in the US will bring an end to the discussion about homosexuality will be sorely disappointed. It will will only energize increased demands from the homosexual lobby. Those of you who are tired of fighting and want to capitulate will only have to keep on capitulating. There will be no end to the capitulation required of you.

    Moral insanity has come to dominate political and cultural discussions in America today. A zealous return to Christ by Christians is the only force strong enough to alter the trajectory we are on.

    • A legal defense of the ‘idiotic’ slippery slope argument:

      Click to access l

      Who has not observed human nature and not observed the slippery slope at play, at home, work or in any social context?

      Time to get serious about some realities.

      • law.ucla.edu/Volokh/slipperymag.pdf

        Bad link above- sorry about that. Engine search should produce link to UCLA analyses above.

        • Jae,

          Good article, and I can think of a very historical examples of the slippery slope becoming reality. What I found most interesting was the brief paragraph on metaphors. To paraphrase, a lie to help one see beyond it and to a truth.

          • SS-yes, glad you could access the thoughtful article (no thanks to my feeble attempt to link it up)! I usually have little use for legal analyses of principles of nature, but, sometimes using the language of your opposition is more effective than attempting to teach them a whole new language (which is actually more of a lost art in our present culture) based in pure truths.

            The first line of defense in this battle, which is to regain acknowledgement of and support for the principles of nature that are the underpinnings of our free society, is to reclaim the truths of our shared language. Language is not relative, words have universal meanings for all humans. Just as body language and non-linguistic vocalizations are universal, so is language based upon the word.

            Next, will be the need to determine truths based upon shared experience, perception and reality. You cant logically debate opposition that has been trained (programmed) to deny the realities of nature. You cant reason with someone who actually believes that the sky is yellow because that is how they have been brainwashed to see it.

            There is right and wrong, good and bad, a universally recognized color spectrum, principles of physics, biology and chemistry- all of which operate in accordance with the laws of nature, of which all humans (even that subject ~2%) are an integral part.

            From there, and only from there, can there be any honest (rational) debate about the social merits of SSM. Anything less is authoritarian-dictatorial oppression of a free society.

  26. Jim, I think she was smart to leave God out of it in the newspaper article in this instance. As soon as some people read about her religious convictions, they will immediately discount what she has to say, figuring that she must be a religious zealot.

    In so many cases, if not all, Godly Truths, (which are really the same is any Truth) can be argued without even mentioning God because God and Reason, religion and Reason, are not really at odds. As Christians, our goal is to reach hearts and we need to speak to people in language that they understand. St. Paul talked about this in 1 Corinthians 9:22

  27. Zeta Zed ~

    Hope this comment ends up in the right place!

    You said, “Polyamorous relationships, as they are practiced in 100% of the world where they are practiced, are inherently sexist institutions, with many women to one man and never the corollary …”

    I’m not sure where you live, but you are wrong. I am an former lesbian-identified & then bisexual-identified woman who also lived polyamorously for a number of years. In the Queer (as they prefer to be called) communities of which I was a part, polyamory was a beloved practise for women of all sexual identities, as well as men. I myself had multiple partners of multiple genders, & my dream was to marry both a woman & a man. I know absolutely *scads* of women involved with multiple men & loads of folks of all gender-identities who take these relationships very seriously & consider themselves to be married. They would *love* to have their relationships normalized, validated, celebrated, &, finally, incentivized, & they are just waiting for a precedent. If you truly think it is otherwise, it must be due to your small social circle.

    The “Queers” I know & love (& again, that is the term they prefer to be called) are just chomping at the bit to give a public & unapologetic burial to all traditional ideas of gender, romantic relationships, & marriage, for what they believe to be a superior ethic & freedom. They in fact see this as integrally tied *to* feminism, rather than “inherently sexist” as you presume. What you say may be true in other countries, but it is not so in the U.S.A., nor in many European nations today.

    If there is no absolute truth on which to stand, then it’s *all* relative, & it’s your “truth” (i.e., viewpoint) against mine & who has the most lobbying power.

    • “If there is no absolute truth on which to stand, then it’s *all* relative, & it’s your ‘truth’ (i.e., viewpoint) against mine & who has the most lobbying power.”

      Well said, KP! That is the crux of most debates, and one reason why I like to flush out a person’s worldview and moral presuppositions as early as possible. Merely debating surface issues is technically humoring some people, when the real question is whether there are such things as objective moral principles in the first place. It seems dismissive and intellectually lazy to say “that’s just your opinion,” but if their worldview does not support concrete principles, then that’s really all there is to their complaints and advocacy — there is no grounds to appeal to “rights” and no grounds to call you “wrong.”

      • “So that really just leaves incestuous relationships, and if you can’t understand why the government wouldn’t want to support them then you’re truly lost to this debate and you just wish to play Devil’s advocate.”

        If adulthood and consent are the only criteria by which to judge the social benefits of a “marriage”, why not incest?…

        ….Well, aside from the fact that humans would not have survived the brutal evolutionary requirements regarding fitness. Incest is as much a dead-end as is obligate homosexuality in the natural world- which is why it doesn’t occur, except in those few places corrupted by Man (please, spare us the usual zoo and livestock examples in which some individuals exhibit highly aberrant behavior due to their unnatural selection/breeding and environment).

        There is something devilish, for sure, in the SSM advocates irrational argument, that which intends to undermine a free society – and, it should not be projected onto the SSM opponents rational argument.

  28. ZetaZed,

    As KP has demonstrated, the slippery slope argument is indeed valid in the case of SS”M” for homosexual couples. “Slippery slope” is used by many as a pejorative term. That is, they intend to discredit any slippery slope argument simply for the reason that it is a slippery slope argument. However, there are valid uses of such an argument and so it is not ipso facto a logical fallacy. Again, KP has vividly and powerfully demonstrated that it is valid in this case.

    All that said, there is more to the invocation of palymory, incest, bestiality, sexless marriage between three lawyers looking for a tax benefit, and so on than an application of the slippery slope argument. These other arrangements are also invoked to demonstrate that there is no principled reason to allow marriage to be redefined to include homosexual couples only. That is, if you redefine marriage to include homosexual couples you have to come up with ad hoc reasons for excluding all these other combinations waiting for similar legitimization and incentives. I have yet to hear the SS”M” lobby put forward a principled reason that would allow Adam and Steve to marry but not Adam, Steve, and Eve. In oral arguments before SCOTUS, the government’s lawyer was asked specifically about the legitimacy of the numerical requirement for marriage if the gender requirement were removed. Her answer was “that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is the mutual support and consent of two people.” In other words, to defend the numerical requirement she invoked tradition – which her argument against the legitimacy of the male-female requirement was intended to eviscerate! Oddly, none of the justices followed up on the stunning hypocrisy. I think our country’s elites have become blind to the most obvious truths; they spend their time arguing the minutia.

    Therefore, the “equal protection” argument for SS”M” is unprincipled and hypocritical because it excludes the sort of people KP says want in on the change. This is true irrespective of any slippery slope aspects.

    • Hi Warwick. Thanks for reaching out. I’m honored by your request, but find it hard to imagine that I would be the right choice for such an audience. I sent you an email. If you didn’t get it you can email me at asktheBigot@Hotmail.com. All the best to you, Katy

      • Actually, Katy may be just perfect for this mission, Warwick. Our friends in beautiful Oz, for better or for worse, have looked to the US (in addition to the UK), for examples of sound government and social policies. An Americans’ insight, especially one with the Bigot’s background and knack for speaking eloquently, may provide a perspective the Australian Parliament needs to hear before [wrongly] following in our errant footsteps.

        An island nation so intertwined with its natural environment is hopefully not as wont to ignore the rules of nature, as relates to the requirements of human flourishing inherent in natural marriage, as are the too far-removed technocrats of ‘mainland’ western civilization.

  29. ZetaZed,

    I am unashamedly Christian. That does not, however, disqualify me from being a citizen of the United States with rights and responsibilities. One of my responsibilities to my fellow citizens is to speak up about public policy matters with my very best ideas – regardless of their source. All of the reasons I have given for leaving the definition of marriage as it has stood throughout all human history have been based on logic, science, and history. I don’t expect you to agree with Jesus, but I do expect you to be logical in your arguments. Examine the arguments I have made to you on this page and you will see that they do not require someone to be a Christian in order to accept them. By contrast, neither you nor the LGBT lobby have offered a coherent and cogent argument for the redefinition of marriage. Instead, you want us to accept SS”M” because you think your view now constitutes a majority. Even if it does, that only makes you the majority; it doesn’t make you logical or right.

    Do you think that the 14th Amendment would ever have been approved if the citizens who approved it thought the amendment would require the redefinition of marriage? That amendment was designed to rectify the wrong of American slavery; it was not designed redesign a social order that has existed since the beginning of the human race. If you want SS”M”, then amend the Constitution, but don’t insult our intelligence by saying that the Constitution already grants it.

    If SCOTUS grants SS”M” as a Constitutional right, it will demonstrate once again that it has become largely populated with cowards who bend with the wind of public opinion. Alas, principled persons need not apply for a seat on the Supreme Court as political correctness would never allow them to be confirmed by the Senate.

    • Your source is Christianity. I, like an ever-increasing portion of the United States, especially among young people, am not a Christian and I do not care what your religion says on social issues. I simply do not care and I do not want it influencing public policy. It’s all fine and dandy that your holy book (in between discussing the evils of planting multiple crops in the same soil and working on Sundays) condemns the evils of homosexuality, but I don’t adhere to the ramblings of some 2000 year old tome. Neither did our Founding Fathers, which is why only a choice few of the more than 600 laws of the OT (among which the abolition of homosexuality is included) are in our Constitution.

      I and the LGBT community have offered plenty of coherent reasons to recognize the marital rights of consenting non-related adult couples literally a million times. You simply disagree with them. Well I’ll restate mine once more (and feel free to actually refute this one): Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (an Amendment designed for the protection of minority groups from the majority, not simply for the benefit of ending slavery), the government cannot and should not pass legislation forbidding the rights of equally-situated adults based on gender, racial, religious or sexual discrimination. restricting marriage benefits and protections (which are guaranteed as civil rights by the Supreme Court in 14 separate cases) to gender or sexuality would be in violation of that equal protection statute. I’m not insulting your intelligence, I’m simply pointing out that you are wrong and the Federal courts all seem to agree with me since this is the argument used in court and the argument that has overturned all of these same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional .

      You people need to stop bringing up the “redefinition of marriage” because marriage has been redefined at the whim of society a handful of times in the last century alone, we do it whenever the populace feels that these laws do not accurately reflect the couples we want protected with these rights. And right now your side doesn’t seem to understand that roughly 60% of Americans support same sex marriage rights.

      What’s “logical and right” are that consenting adult couples are not left in the cold in the event of the death or severe illness of a loved one, or that their last wills and testaments are secured in law and aren’t at risk for other family members or the state seizing that property, or any of the hundreds of Federal benefits and rights associated with marriage.

      Principled persons are those who recognize that if the Federal Government is involved in granting rights and benefits to adult non-related couples then they must do so equally and fairly and not based on gender or sexuality discrimination. You simply want a Senate made up of Cruzes and Santorums and Huckabees, people who would be better suited as theocrats than politicians

      • ZetaZed – This is a serious question for which I can’t seem to get an answer. Since you keep specifying “non-related couples,” you apparently have thought about this. The potential of the gov granting “equal treatment” to incestuous couples is my greatest concern once the process of redefining the current definition of marriage begins. This would affect every family, gay and straight, by introducing and legitimizing possibilities that should not exist in the intimacy of a family setting. Please visit the following site and read some of the case studies before replying: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/case-studies.html

        Another way to ask this is: Are you for Full Marriage Equality, or are do you only favor marriage equality for gay couples? If your answer is gay couples only, I honestly don’t see how that isn’t discriminatory and unconstitutional by your own reasoning.


  30. ZetaZed,

    You said, “…we only hear about Christian bakers or florists from you people as if somehow these people are in actual danger.” Depends on what kind of danger you mean. Some of them have already lost income, others are losing their businesses. If you’re a family business, losing your livelihood is a pretty serious matter. When the state goes after a small family-owned business it’s a very big deal for that family. What makes the hostility toward these families all the more unjustifiable is that there are more than enough bakers, florists, and photographers who would love to get all the SS”M” business – why then drive out of business the minority who don’t want to do it?

    Most of the country – whether for or against SS”M” – is ignoring the plight of bakers, florists, and photographers. Alas, the BFP demographic lacks the political clout that would allow them to exploit their victim status. I wonder how many of them are silently looking for another line of work, and how desperate some of them must feel who have worked in their field for a lifetime and have no other marketable skills.

    Homosexuals are not victims in the current culture; they are the victors. The true victims are being deprived of property and of hope while the rest of the country is looking the other way. It’s shameful to belittle the weak while the strong are bullying them.

    • There have been a GRAND TOTAL of 6 cases of Christian wedding-related businesses facing fines for refusing to serve homosexual customers. 6. Only one of these cases, the bakery in Oregon, was a significant fine (more than a few hundred dollars) and that was because that business owner was in violation of state law that was in place before she even opened her bakery. In 11 years of gay marriage, 6 total cases of Christians refusing to abide by anti-discrimination law in the select states that have protections for homosexuals from discrimination (less than half the country). That’s hardly an epidemic and it is hardly anything more than simple friction that should be expected when homosexuals are granted equal rights. There was friction when we allowed interracial marriage, just ask Bob Jones University, does that mean we shouldn’t have allowed it because some Christian institutions that despised interracial marriage were caught in the crossfire?

      The fact is that I cannot refuse service to a Christian wedding if I am in the wedding services industry under the Civil Rights Act, an act that has been in place for 51 years now. If I am not allowed to discriminate against a Christian wedding, I do not understand why Christians should be free to discriminate against a gay wedding. Until you can give a good reason why I shouldn’t be able to discriminate against Christians but Christians should be free to discriminate against gays, your argument fails in light of the Civil Rights Act.

      If you get in the wedding business, you’re going to have to bake a cake or take a picture of a gay couple. That is in no way “supporting” the marriage, my marriage wasn’t supported by the catering company I happened to hire for my wedding. These Christians should get off their high horse, stop complaining so much and recognize that when you sell a product to someone this in no way means you are condoning them or their marriage.

      Your attempts to divide society into homosexuals and “the victims” of homosexuals proves once more your arguments are rooted in Christian bigotry and not rational thought, and that you are a victim of the Right-wing blogosphere’s brainwashing nonsense, acting like there are bakeries and florists in every city being attacked by gay clients when in reality more people die of rabies in the US

  31. ZetaZed,

    I’ve already addressed your “argument” so please refer to what I’ve already written rather than making me write it all again.

    In that regard, it’s inappropriate for you to berate my religion when the reasons I’ve given you are non-religious in nature.

    The biggest mistake we made as a nation was allowing no-fault divorce laws in all 50 states, for if marriage did not allow divorce-on-demand it’s not likely that the LGBT lobby would be as interested in the institution as they currently are.

  32. ZetaZed,

    You don’t have to be a Christian to know that there’s nothing equal about claiming “equal protection” for one group (LGBT) while denying it for another (BFP),

  33. Just doing some reading tonight, and ran across your site. I LOVE the grace, rationality and clarity of your words. Thank you for the risks you take and voicing from the insider/outsider perspective.

  34. Katy,
    I appreciate your writing, especially your open letter to Justice Kennedy (grieved it was not heeded). The way you frame marriage issues in terms of children’s rights has great moral force. I often think about how the motivation for no-fault divorce laws was similar to gay marriage and also subordinated the well-being of children to the ‘happiness’ of adults, and how my life was affected by that years later with my own parent’s divorce (for selfish reasons). I’m reaching out to ask you how to connect with the children’s rights community you are part of. I’m interested in this not only with respect to marriage/family issues but also education (I’m a public school teacher) and national debt.


  35. So is there still money to be made in bigotry, then? Because, honey, we all know that’s the only reason people like you are in this business…greasing a few easy bucks out of the hands of “values voters.”

    Not that I doubt the sincerity of your bigotry, mind you.

    • “Because, honey, we all know that’s the only reason people like you are in this business…greasing a few easy bucks out of the hands of “values voters.”

      And, because, as well know, forcing SS’M’ onto society had nothing to do with those ‘easy bucks’, or over 1300 benefits (money, ‘honey’) cited more millions of times by the rad LBGTQ ‘marriage’ lobby than the millions the taxpayer will need to foot so that they can realize their ‘windfall’.

  36. Dear Ms. Faust,

    I agree with your statement that “children have rights” and that they have a right to a Mother and a Father. But why don’t you concentrate on opposing divorce, which deprives many, many more children of the family life to which they are entitled, as opposed to gay adoption, which, by comparison, is a drop in the bucket.?

    Jesus spoke out against men divorcing their wives when they become a little older and less attractive, as he knew that this is a huge problem in society, when men, in the spirit of adultery, dump their wives for younger, more attractive women.

    I suggest you follow the example of Jesus instead, and call your Father out as the one who misbehaved, and not your Mother.

    • “But why don’t you concentrate on opposing divorce….”

      Because society isn’t being forced to incentivize divorce or any other action or outcome that intentionally separates children from their own two biological parents.

      Do you support redefining marriage to support any number or relationship or age of persons? If so, is that a good ‘family” in which children should be raised? If not, why not?

  37. Katy, I am the Executive Director of COLAGE a national non profit organization for and by people with LGBTQ parents. Many have contacted me and us to comment on your position, which we have not yet done without speaking with you first. I welcome a conversation with you to both share more about our work and to hear more about your experiences if you are interested. Coffee in Seattle? Thank you for your consideration, Annie

    • Hey Bigot what a great opportunity. Forgive this because describing what the equality movement does will sound unhinged.

      Hi Anne, while you are checking to see what Katy might have in common with Alan Chambers maybe you can jot down our concerns and forward them to the leaders at Big Gay. They are all documented. We would just like you to know where we stand.

      So feel free to let us know your folks postion on:

      The threats against our families and us to silence bully and intimidate.

      The 100’s of pieces of correspondence Gay activists sent with violent language and ideation.

      The extensive violations of privacy that include but are limited posting of addresses and children’s information—school, family and address and location with address of where youth groups met.

      (As an aside I wonder Anne if have you had to move any of your children to an undisclosed location because gay activists threatened the family and your home was not safe and either was any other known relative)

      The attempts to pressure and or blackmail family members into lying on behalf of LGBT in ways that would damage us.

      What we want:

      We want a detailed explanation of 1000’s of correspondence sent to get COGs fired or to incite violence against COGs?

      We want a detailed letter to all recipients for each letter stating the letter was sent to silence and harm and GLAAD and the HRC are really nice honest folk and they are very sorry.

      We want an investigation and report into the issue of cyber stalking and doxxing. We want a public accounting of the cost to us of relocation of families in part or whole because of threats from LGBT activists.

      We demand the removal of material that is defamation and compensation for the damage and a public apology on posted in place of the offensive material.

      We want an investigation and public disclosure into the abuse of children in same sex homes and a statement that this has been hidden. We want public disclosure about the number of suicides and attempts by COGs in the custody of same sex couple.

      We expect a public apology in all major LGBT news outlets for all incidents of harassment, bullying, defamation that COGS and their families have endured because of LGBT activists.

      We expect a full investigation and disclosure into who was paid to threaten us and then restitution and prosecution—let GLAAD and the HRC turn them over.

      We want a public acknowledgement that activists have created a situation that put our families and us in a constant state of danger and that we will never be safe or restored because of the exposure.

      A full admission about the hate and intimidation campaigns.

      The public recognition that other people in our lives that were also harassed and threatened will never be the same either. And since we both know none of this will ever happen

Leave a Reply to LeannaDV Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s