Robert A. J. Gagnon Home Articles Available Online Response to Book Reviews Material for "Two Views" Material for "Christian Sexuality" Answers to Emails College Materials Robert Gagnon.htm
|
An Exchange with a "Loving" Critic of My
"Open Letter Regarding the Current Hate
Crimes Amendment"
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Oct. 22, 2005
In response to a posting of my "Open Letter Regarding the Current Hate
Crimes Amendment" on David Virtue's
VirtueOnline (posting
here; also on my website, with some updating,
here), I
received some email from a certain Jennifer Usher who did not identify
herself further. Later I discovered through some web digging that she
calls herself a "Health Educator" and works at the
Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California, San
Francisco, CA 94109. Her name is one of the many names listed on two
soon-to-be presented studies on transgendered persons by researchers the
Center for AIDS Prevention Studies. I cite the exchange both as a way of
further substantiating my points in the "Open Letter" and as an example to
readers of the kind of illogic, abuse, and hate that I often receive from
homosex-advocates.
Here is the first email that I received from Ms. Usher:
I read your "An
Open Letter Regarding the Current Hate Crimes Amendment " and I
have to say that it is, without a doubt, one of the worst pieces of
outright deception I have seen in a long time. I mean really, it is
obvious that you are not so ignorant as to actually believe this
stuff. I mean, you have heard of the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution? The stuff you suggest, none of which is even
remotely a possible result of the law as written, would remotely
stand up to review by the courts. No, obviously, you have
very little regard for the intelligence of conservative Christians,
and think that they will swallow such drivel without giving it
serious thought. Yes, I know, of course they will. Sad when you
think about it, but it is the reason people like you are able to con
them into thinking you actually believe in the Bible. I mean, come
on, just between you and me, you don't really believe that stuff
about, oh say, not bearing false witness...or loving your neighbor
as yourself....or as Paul says in Ephesians, "...laying aside
falsehood, SPEAK TRUTH EACH ONE of you WITH HIS NEIGHBOR," now do
you? Of course not. If you can get people to oppose a law that
would simply make it a bit less likely that people that you think it
is acceptable to hate get harmed....well, what's a few lies?
Might I suggest sir, that you consider repentance, accepting Jesus
Christ as your Savior, and asking that He help you overcome your
problems?
Jennifer Usher
I responded:
Dear Jennifer,
Have you actually read the three links that I provide? After you
read them, get back to me and tell me again how these things can't
be done in the United States. Until then, you are just responding
out of blind anger.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html
http://www.robgagnon.net/HomosexualAgenda.htm
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchFalseWitness.pdf
(pp. 10-18)
As I wrote,
many of
these tragic results have already taken place in Canada,
Scandinavia and the lowland European countries, and even in parts of
the United States.
Let's look at your remark about the First Amendment. Do you think
that if you spout racist comments in a white-collar job the First
Amendment protects your continued employment? If opposition to
homosexual practice is equated with racism, as would happen with
such an amendment, the same things that would happen to overt
racists would happen to those who oppose homosexual practice.
As I said, until you actually stop to read the links, all three
links, don't correspond again. There is no point in repeating what
is already laid out clearly there to someone who won't read these
and yet sets out to abuse me.
Instead of asking me to repent and receive Jesus, you should
consider (1) whether the abusive character of your remarks to me
corresponds to Christian rhetoric and (2) whether your own stance on
sexual ethics (i.e. affirming homosexual practice) corresponds to
Jesus' teaching and thus to a confession of Christ's lordship.
Sincerely,
Dr. Gagnon
Jennifer
then responded:
Let's see an article about Canada, which is not the United States,
and which has an entirely different form of government, and two
articles written by someone I already know is a liar. Yes, I looked
at them. As I say, two of them are your own writings. Providing
those to prove anything is, at best, circular reasoning. Oh, and
Robert Knight? ROTFL! He is about as honest as you are.
And your argument about what one can, and cannot, say in a place of
employment is a straw argument. Your article states that such will
be a direct result of this law. Such is not remotely defensible.
Obviously, you think yourself more clever than you really are.
Thanks for a good laugh. Perhaps I misjudged you, and thought you
smarter than you are. If you really believe this stuff, well, I
suppose ignorance is less dangerous than malicious deceit. But not
much.
In any case, at least try to base your arguments on facts, not
imaginary rhetoric.
And as to my last remarks, they are quite sincere. I believe the
Bible. Including the parts that say that we should be honest, and
love our neighbor. I have not hatred for you, only pity.
Jennifer Usher
To
which I responded:
Don't kid yourself, Jennifer, your
last email is another piece of hate mail, not an expression of love.
And you obviously don't believe the Bible as regards key sexuality
issues.
Of course Canada is a different country from the US. But it has
similar civil liberties--obviously. And perhaps it escaped your
notice that the majority of the Supreme Court that ruled against the
Texas sodomy law made appeal for its reasoning to European legal
traditions?
If you are saying that I am lying about incidents that I report on
in these links then you are in an even worse moral state than could
be presumed from your previous email. Are you claiming that I am
lying about the following five cases in the United States?
On Apr. 28, 2003 Dr. Cheryl Clark was ordered by a judge not to say
anything "homophobic" to her own adopted 8-year-old daughter. Clark
had once been in a lesbian relationship, during which time Clark
adopted a girl from China. Her lesbian partner, Elsey McLeod, had
traveled with her to China but only Dr. Clark had applied for the
adoption and paid for it. Her partner had not expressed an interest
in acting as a parent. Later in 2000 Dr. Clark returned to her
Christian roots, realized that her homosexual lifestyle was
incompatible with being a Christian, and broke off the relationship.
McLeod sued for joint custody. Denver County Circuit Judge John
Coughlin not only granted joint custody, requiring Dr. Clark to make
joint decisions with her ex-girlfriend, but also ordered Dr. Clark
to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or
teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered
homophobic." McLeod was not required to abstain from remarks
critical of Dr. Clark's beliefs, even though she was critical of
Clark's church and religion. On July 1, 2004, the Colorado Court of
Appeals upheld the joint custody order but sent the case back to the
lower court to determine whether barring anti-homosexual religious
instruction violates the woman's First Amendment rights. Dr. Clark
is appealing the joint custody aspect of the decision.
On Jan. 6, 2004 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that Hewlett-Packard's Boise, Idaho, office was justified in
firing Richard Peterson for silently protesting homosexual activism
in the workplace. Peterson's great "crime" was responding to a
"diversity posters" celebrating homosexuality by posting two or
three Bible passages implicitly critical of homosexual behavior on
the overhead bin in his cubicle. No co-worker had complained about
Peterson's postings and Peterson had not accosted any co-worker.
In October 2002, Rolf Szabo, a 23-year employee of The Eastman Kodak
Co., was fired when he responded to an e-mail requiring supervisors
to promote a "Coming Out Day" for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender employees with the following: "Please do not send this
type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and
offensive. Thank you."
In 2000, Kenneth P. Gee Sr., a Bureau of Reclamation job training
teacher in Nampa, Idaho, and a Mormon, was ordered by his employer
to "observe gay and lesbian pride." Gee e-mailed his supervisor,
saying that he believed homosexual behavior was sinful and did not
want to celebrate it. Three supervisors told him that his e-mail
violated federal policies. He was warned not to express
disagreements in the workplace again or face termination. The case
is currently under litigation.
In 1998 Annie Coffey-Montes, a New York Bell Atlantic employee for
20 years, was fired for attempting to remove herself from the e-mail
list of GLOBE (Gay and Lesbians of Bell Atlantic), which advertised
"gay pride" parades, "coming out" parties, and homosexual dances.
After a year of petitioning her supervisor to have her name removed,
she responded to one GLOBE e-mail with: "Please take me off this
email. I find it morally offensive. God bless you." She ended by
citing Romans 1:27. Coffey-Montes was then fired for "creating a
hostile work environment." She appealed to the New York State
Department of Health. The Department of Health dropped the case
against New York Bell even though New York Bell failed to show for
all three hearings. The decision to drop the case was not all that
surprising, considering that Coffey-Montes' caseworker had
pro-homosex posters on her office wall. Coffey-Montes subsequently
sued New York Bell and received an out-of-court settlement. New York
Bell has not changed its policy.
You determine facts, apparently, on the basis of whether they
conform to your ideology rather than reality. If you don't believe
me, look up the cases yourself--unless you are afraid to do so.
Dr. Gagnon
Ms.
Usher's response:
Alas, it is "hate" when you disagree, but not when you spout it.
No, Canada does not have the same civil liberties as we do. Nor
does England, which allows censorship that would never be allowed in
the United States. And the Supreme Court's ruling against the Texas
sodomy law was based on the right to privacy, something I assume you
have no desire for.
Now, let's consider those cases. In the case of Dr. Cheryl Clark,
you are still distorting the facts concerning that case. What the
court ruled is quite different from what you claim:
Here are two quotes from the ACTUAL court decision:
We also consider whether the prohibition against homophobic
religious teachings impermissibly invades Clark's rights to control
the religious upbringing of E.L.M.C. under the Free Exercise Clause
of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and its
Colorado counterpart. We vacate the order as to this limitation and
remand this aspect of the case to the trial court for findings
required by § 14-10-130(1), C.R.S.
AND
The order is
affirmed as to joint parental responsibilities and parenting time.
The order is vacated as to limitations on religious upbringing, and
the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings,
consistent with this opinion, under § 14-10-130(1).
Simply put, they did not rule anything like what you claim. In fact,
they specifically ruled that it was a violation of her First
Amendment rights to make such a decision. The law cited makes an
exception where "the child's physical health would be endangered or
the child's emotional development significantly impaired." In
another words, they did exactly the opposite of what you claim.
They found that such was a violation of her religious liberties,
"Hence, given the important role that religious freedom enjoys in
our constitutional scheme of ordered liberty, Bowen v. Roy,
476 U.S. 693, 106 S.Ct. 2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986), and the mandate
of § 14-10-130(1), we conclude that remand is necessary." And I
realize you may honestly not understand how the courts work. This
is how these cases are handled. They are sent back to the
appropriate court so it can issue a ruling that is consistent with
the law, as interpreted by the higher court. As to the rest of the
cases cited, these involve actions by employers. Employers are not,
in most cases, bound by the First Amendment regarding speech on the
job. They can also restrict how one uses company computers. In
fact, in the absence of a contract, or a specific law, such as a
non-discrimination law, they can fire someone for any reason they
choose. Shoot, I knew one guy who had his job threatened because he
employer (who was mentally ill) didn't like the color of his car.
His employer, to his credit, did pay for the paint job, and the car
went from red, or more specifically, crimson (the color most
associated with the University of Alabama) to blue (Auburn
University's color). Had he refused to comply, he would have been
fired, and would have had NO recourse. Silly? Yes, but such is the
law. The Gee case should prove interesting. He violated a policy
of his employer, in this case the Federal Government. The only
question that is relevant here is whether or not restricting his
statement in that context was a violation of free speech. It will
be interesting to see the actual court ruling, as I am sure there
are facts that have not been reported in the conservative press. In
fact, one story on the case indicates that the real issue was his
demand that he not receive certain emails. And employer, even the
Federal government, has the right to send employees emails
concerning workplace issues. Alas, it appears that this case is
being presented in a less than truthful manner.
As to your final remark, well as you can see, I did look up the
cases, and I find your arguments lacking, and still more than a
little dishonest.
If you wish, you can try again...
Jennifer Usher
To which I responded:
Jennifer,
You think that with your last email you have somehow demonstrated
your case. Of course, you have done nothing of the sort.
Canada’s civil liberties are indeed similar to those of the United
States; in this you are simply wrong.
You still evade the issue that the Supreme Court majority called on
legal traditions in other Western nations to substantiate its views.
The Court majority ruled:
And, to the extent Bowers
[the 1986 Supreme
Court ruling that declared that homosexual intercourse was not a
fundamental right]
relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s
reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of
Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent
with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to
engage in intimate, consensual conduct.
The European
Court of Human Rights is thus brought into the case to buttress the
Supreme Court's lack of a case. Yet you say the legal traditions of
other Western nations have no bearing on what happens in the United
States? That we are a little insulated bubble against trends in
other Western nations?
As for the
so-called absolute “right to privacy” that you pay homage to, I
suppose you find problematic any role by the state in regulating
bigamy, adult incest, prostitution, adultery, bestiality, child
pornography, recreational use of heroin, and the like. Scalia noted
this contradiction, quite rightly, and added:
We have held
repeatedly, in cases the Court today does not overrule, that only
fundamental rights qualify for this so-called “heightened
scrutiny” protection—that is, rights which are “‘deeply rooted in
this Nation’s history and tradition.’”
“Noting that “[p]roscriptions
against that conduct have ancient roots,” id., at 192, that
“[s]odomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by
the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of
Rights,” and that many States had retained their bans on sodomy...,
Bowers
concluded that a right to engage in
homosexual sodomy was not “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history
and tradition.’”
Indeed, the
Supreme Court with this decision has already set the stage for
criminalizing any attempts to “discriminate” against homosexual
persons. Again, Scalia:
One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the
Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct
is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination
both in the public and in the private spheres.” It is clear from
this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing
from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic
rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons
who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their
business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their
children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as
protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they
believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as
“discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter.
So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s
anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the
attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in
most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who
engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban
such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected
by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994; Civil
Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in
some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal
statute, see 10 U. S. C. §654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the
armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to
engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such
“discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of
America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640 (2000).
…[A]n earlier passage in the Court’s opinion [in Lawrence v. Texas]
. . . notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal
decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception,
family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then
declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek
autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
(emphasis added). Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of
constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made
between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal
recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of
homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of
proscribing that conduct; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside
all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt
expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can
be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring”; what
justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of
marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected
by the Constitution”?
Oh no, you say, “The stuff that Gagnon suggests could happen
from making 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' a specially
protected federal civil right could never happen here in the United
States, that it would never stand up to review by the courts.” Yet
the Lawrence v. Texas case has already laid the groundwork
for just such a transformation, and it has done so, in part, by
appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. The majority of the
Supreme Court—unless Bush changes it—would be only too happy to
finish the job, once the federal government has given it the excuse
it needs by expressly declaring “sexual orientation” to be a civil
rights category deserving special federal protection. The same
process occurred in Vermont: sexual orientation “hate crime”
legislation furthered so-called “non-employment discrimination”
legislation which led the Court to declare that the state had
already established homosexual behavior as a special civil right,
which enabled the court to demand all the benefits of marriage for
homosexual unions. The Vermont Supreme Court simply imposed its will
on the state legislature.
Let’s take the Boy Scouts as another example. Here we have a private
organization. Oh no, you say, their rights as a private organization
are protected; they don’t have to admit homosexual scoutmasters. Our
American freedoms would not allow a compromise of that. Well, the
New Jersey Supreme Court disagrees with you, for they saw the Scouts
as in violation of New Jersey’s antidiscrimination law, which
included sexual orientation. But maybe they have more imagination
than you to see that private organizations like the Scouts are not
necessarily protected by the U.S. Constitution. True, the Supreme
Court ruled in the Scouts’ favor, but 4 out of 9 justices did
not—apparently too they see this coercion of the Scouts as justified
by the Constitution. One more left-leaning justice added to the
Court would change everything, wouldn’t it?
Of course, too,
it is quite obvious that granting civil rights status to “sexual
orientation” would mean that a seminary that “discriminated” against
homosexually active candidates would sacrifice the hundreds of
thousands that they receive in federal student loans. Do you contest
this?
That schools
cannot be required to promote “sexual orientation diversity”? You
contest this too? Have you heard of California?
As for the Clark case, you have not demonstrated that I am
“distorting the facts concerning the case.” I guess I have to repeat
for you what I said:
On Apr. 28, 2003 Dr. Cheryl Clark was ordered by a judge not to say
anything "homophobic" to her own adopted 8-year-old daughter. Clark
had once been in a lesbian relationship, during which time Clark
adopted a girl from China. Her lesbian partner, Elsey McLeod, had
traveled with her to China but only Dr. Clark had applied for the
adoption and paid for it. Her partner had not expressed an interest
in acting as a parent. Later in 2000 Dr. Clark returned to her
Christian roots, realized that her homosexual lifestyle was
incompatible with being a Christian, and broke off the relationship.
McLeod sued for joint custody. Denver County Circuit Judge John
Coughlin not only granted joint custody, requiring Dr. Clark to make
joint decisions with her ex-girlfriend, but also ordered Dr. Clark
to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or
teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered
homophobic." McLeod was not required to abstain from remarks
critical of Dr. Clark's beliefs, even though she was critical of
Clark's church and religion. On July 1, 2004, the Colorado Court of
Appeals upheld the joint custody order but sent the case back to the
lower court to determine whether barring anti-homosexual religious
instruction violates the woman's First Amendment rights. Dr. Clark
is appealing the joint custody aspect of the decision.
Now, how does that presentation differ from anything that you have
quoted in your prior correspondence? I made quite clear that Dr. Clark was appealing the
joint custody aspect of the decision, not the anti-homosexual
religious instruction. The Appeals Court did indeed remand the case
back to the lower court “for further proceedings” on the latter. And
even you note that an exception to the mother’s religious freedoms
can be made if "the child's emotional development [would be]
significantly impaired" by the parent's religious expression. So if
the child grows up and identifies herself as a lesbian, the court
can simply rule that anti-homosexual speech on the part of the
parent would significantly 'impair the child’s emotional
development.' What’s so tough about figuring that out?
And you claim, with the Clark case, that, oh no, a parent’s free
exercise of religious views to her child could never be abridged in
this country. Well, guess what? The Denver County Circuit Judge
disagreed with you. He thought that his ruling was quite compatible
with the First Amendment. I guess he was not as disbelieving as you
that such a thing could happen in this country. If he could make
that ruling before any nationwide civil rights standard is
established, then certainly judges in the future, thoroughly
influenced by a national legal standard that declares anti-homosex
views to be bigoted and discriminatory could certainly reach the
same decision. That you pretend not even to be able to imagine this
is stunning.
You completely miss the point on the possibility of being fired from
the workplace, on several levels. First, you miss the point that a
national legal system that defines “sexual orientation” as a
specially protected civil right classification puts employers at
risk if they do not demonstrate a “friendly” and supportive
workplace, thereby compelling them to stamp out any
discriminatory practices or “climate of fear” towards those whose
“civil rights” are specially federally protected. For example, any
employer that could be charged with creating such a climate toward
black persons or women would be subject to federal prosecution and
huge damages. Do you not know this? The same would apply to “sexual
minorities” once “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are made
protected civil rights categories. Secondly, to take the Peterson
case as an example, had Peterson been a black man and had he been
fired for posting quotations of Martin Luther King on his cubicle,
Hewlett-Packard would have been required to restore him to his job
and undoubtedly the corporation would have faced huge fines. Why do
companies mandate “sensitivity training” regarding civil rights of
women and minorities (including my seminary)? They do so to protect
themselves against legal action by those who belong to specially
protected civil rights categories.
In addition, had Szabo been a woman and had responded to a company
email that characterized women as inferior to men with the words,
“Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I
find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you," the company could have
been sued for millions and she would have won in a Kodak instant. So
the company is limited in whom they can fire and on what grounds,
especially when civil rights issues are involved. But, when “sexual
orientation” becomes a special civil rights category then the
employer not only can get away with firing someone like Szabo but it
becomes its civic and legal responsibility to do so. By the way,
Szabo wasn’t just fired for not wanting any more company emails on
the matter. He was fired for expressing hostility to the company’s
corporate values regarding sexual diversity. Coffey-Montes, too, was
fired from Bell for “creating a hostile work environment,” not
specifically for requesting that the emails not be sent. As it was
she got no help from the New York State Dept. of Health. Had NY at
the time had a state sexual orientation antidiscrimination law the
situation would have been completely untenable for her and she would
not even received an out-of-court settlement from Bell, which still
has not rescinded its policy.
The same goes for the Gee case, which is not about, as you claim,
refusing to receive emails. As one
news source reports it,
In October, the Rutherford Institute filed a federal suit against
the Department of the Interior on behalf of Kenneth P. Gee Sr., a
Bureau of Reclamation job training teacher in Nampa, Idaho. In 2000,
Gee, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
received a directive from his employer to "observe gay and lesbian
pride." The e-mail contained a link to a website that said,
"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people we
personally dislike." In an e-mail to his supervisor, Gee responded
that he believed homosexuality is sinful, and he didn't want to
celebrate it. Three supervisors subsequently informed Gee that his
inappropriate e-mail violated federal policies and embarrassed the
Bureau of Reclamation. Gee said he later received a counseling memo
about inappropriate use of a government computer. The memo warned
him not to express disagreements in the workplace. The Department of
Interior is one of 38 federal departments and agencies to have
adopted a sexual non-discrimination policy, according to the HRC.
The issue for the Bureau was not refusing emails but violating a
sexual orientation non-discrimination policy of this federal agency.
To quote you, it looks like, alas, you are presenting the case in a
less than truthful manner.
Of course, there have been some cases in this country where,
thankfully, justices have ruled in favor of the civil liberties of
those who oppose homosexual practice. But that is because the
country hasn’t yet gone all the way with enshrining 'sexual
orientation' and 'gender identity' as specially protected
classifications, as civil rights. Once that happens, of course the
courts are going to rule in favor of employers who fire workers that
create a climate of hostility, so-called, against persons in these
specially protected civil rights classifications. The fact that some
judges already rule in this direction and that some courts have had
significant dissenting minorities even when protecting First
Amendment rights indicates that the shift is in the winds.
Well, as you can see, it is not I who is, as you put it, "still more
than a little dishonest" about the effects of a sexual orientation
"hate crimes" bill on curtailing civil liberties.
Dr. Gagnon
|