Let's have this discussion about homosexual equality in terms of the Constitution and let people love or hate us as they see fit

by CynthiaYockey on March 15, 2010

I have been working for equality for homosexuals on and off for about 36 years now, a perspective that reaches back to the very beginning of the modern movement for homosexual equality, which began in June of 1969 with the riots started at the Stonewall Inn bar in Greenwich Village by drag queens who refused to follow the traditional kabuki ritual of a police raid.

However, my friend, Mark Koenig, who is a gay blogger at Newsreal, is new to advocating for homosexual equality and he has made the rookie mistake of framing the issue as one of an invalid animosity that good people must renounce. Not surprisingly, this has drawn a firestorm down upon him. However, he is an extremely intelligent and gracious man — which means he seeks and values my perspective — and we have had a chat. I have every confidence that he will frame his arguments in the future on the basis of conservative values of liberty, upholding the Constitution and small government.

I made the following comment on Mark’s post at Newsreal, “Banning Same-Sex Marriage = Rationalizing Bigotry“:


We lesbians and gays are seeking equality. Our goals are noble ones: to marry, to adopt children and to serve our country in the military. We are not seeking tolerance or approval, so let’s not call anyone a bigot.

However, the debate over equality for homosexuals DOES expose a number of ways that various religions have succeeded in appropriating the power of the state to enforce the tenets of their religion on everyone and to force taxpayers to fatten their religion’s wallet.

When it comes to the laws that social conservatives advocate for homosexuals and women, the fundamental intent does not seem to be morality but rather achieving maximum control of human reproduction to force people to have the largest possible number of children in order to generate wealth and power for their religion — in effect, when they have reached the limit of their powers of persuasion, to resort to appropriating the power of the state to take away the individual’s most fundamental liberty, the control of one’s person and reproductivity, and to deny equality to homosexuals for being insufficiently useful in directly producing children to serve the purposes of other people.

In addition, the quest for equality for homosexuals exposes the vast resourcefulness of various religions in getting the government to fund their proselytizing enterprises, including adoption agencies. Regarding the latter, it strikes me that these enterprises ought to be able to make their own way in the world and requiring them to do so is consistent with the conservative principles of smaller government and lower taxes so you can use your money to promote the charities you choose rather than the ones the government chooses.

Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian and Newsreal Feminist Hawk

I was a bit surprised that the first commenter on Mark’s post included a tirade against anal sex. First of all, it’s none of his business when it’s between consenting adults in the privacy of their home. Second, while the value of the experience is obvious for the pitcher, most people don’t seem to know what’s in it for the catcher, so let me clear that up: prostate stimulation. This is why there are sex toys for internal prostate stimulation, which men enjoy because they are men — sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Third, to be quite direct, the pitcher doesn’t get his penis all poopy because the catcher takes care of the hygiene measures required for, ahem, internal cleanliness. Plus, for safer sex, the pitcher uses a condom.

Update, 3/16/2010, Tues.:

While we’re in the neighborhood of “to each his own,” bear in mind that many gay men are thoroughly grossed out by the idea of a man having sex with a woman during her period and getting his penis all bloody.

Lesbians, however, really don’t have problems with either port of entry, mess-wise, because our penises generally are silicone and can be put aside for cleaning at any point in the festivities, so to speak.

What? TMI?

Update, 3/16/2010, Tues.:

Oh, for heaven’s sake! I can’t leave anyone out — it would be WRONG. So — straight women have penises, too, just like the ones lesbians have — to wit, the RELIABLE kind, crafted in a variety of shapes, a rainbow of colors and a wide range of hygienic materials, which they can direct south to use solo or as a supplement or a back-up plan with a male partner. Because the correct answer to, “But I didn’t finish yet!” is NOT, “Sucks to be you.” HOWEVER, for a male partner who craves prostate stimulation, straight women also can strap on these instruments of pleasure and point them north, as detailed in the handy book and the instructional video featured below. (Note: these are affiliate links — if you buy these products after clicking this link, Amazon pays me a small commission that does not cost you any extra money. Your purchase is private and I have no way of knowing who bought any product.)

You’re welcome.

[table id=3 /]

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

smitty March 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm

“First of all, it’s none of his business when it’s between consenting adults in the privacy of their home.”

In particular, not the Federal government’s, which is why a libertarian Constitutional view raises the minimum hackles and sets the least precedent for unintended consequence.

Graumagus March 16, 2010 at 12:31 am

In relation to the update:
Some of us straight folks use all of the above. And could shock the hell out of a large segment of the gay community.

As for the rest…
If the damn horse can speak (human), consents to the marriage, and can sign the license: so be it 🙂

I, for one, am heartily sick and tired of the whole “If we legalize gay marriage then we open the door for bigamist pedo-bestiality nuts to marry a litter of underage goats” line of argument. It’s been complete BS from the first time it was uttered.

Jeff March 16, 2010 at 3:19 pm

I can see where a literal reading of the Bible would lead one to believe that being homosexual is an abomination before God. So, I propose we leave God out of this. Isn’t that really where people’s hackles get up?

Why not leave the word marriage off the table, and call it “civil union”? I realize it’s compartmentalizing the issue. The path is different, but the end result is the same. Leave churches to their own decision as to whether to perform gay marriages or not.

The sex part is not relevant. We marry old people past child bearing years, people that are unable to bear or conceive children. It’s a man/woman thing. Besides, I think that most reasonable people agree, as long as their is no abuse going on-the government ought to stay out of our bedrooms.
.-= Jeff´s last blog ..FOMC Meeting =-.

Cynthia Yockey March 16, 2010 at 6:56 pm


Just BEING a homosexual is an abomination before God? NO! I notice even the people and religions that are strict can find wiggle room to justify anything they want. Homosexuality is not a BEING crime.

Also, it’s just not practical to allow religions to brand the word “marriage” any way they want, especially since there are religions that permit or require polygamy. Even using only religious definition of marriage there is no possibility of agreement.

HOWEVER, every religion certainly is entitled to make up its own definition of marriage and then use the name of the religion to indicate it, such as “Catholic marriage,” “Mormon marriage,” “Evangelical Christian” marriage and so on. This is the perfect solution because each and every religion can do that right now. They also have the right to make their own rules about divorce and set up their own judiciary system for adjudicating divorces under their religion. That’s because under this dual system people who marry both civilly and religiously also must divorce in accordance with both civil and religious laws. Religions that follow this plan will leave government out of their religion’s definition of marriage. This plan will help keep the government smaller. It also preserves liberty by not imposing the religious duties of the majority on everyone.

The proposal that homosexuals be permitted to contract “civil unions” while marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples is intended to sound reasonable and do-able, while being humiliating and impossible. That’s because marriages are created (and dissolved) under state laws. It would be absolutely impossible to keep the laws for marriage and civil union at parity at all times in all 50 states. Some social conservative state delegate or state senator who wants to make his bones always will be in a position to allow proposed legislation affecting marriage to sail through committee while bottling up the legislation required to ensure parity for civil unions. It’s just logistically impossible to have marriage and civil unions be separate but equal.

Jeff, I do appreciate your thoughtful and courteous approach to this issue and regret having to point out the flaws in the proposals.


Amy March 16, 2010 at 11:29 pm

Why, Miss Cynthia…


Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: