GAYS ( 20124 original, 2016 revisions in red)



A Republican candidate has got to have a position on God, Guns and Gays. Here is mine on Gays.

I do not care what consenting adults do in private it is none of my business and I am not interested.

There is no right that state sanctioned marriage offers that cannot be attained by exercising legal documents, such as contracts, wills, powers of attorney and employment agreements.  Civil Unions for homosexual couples seem like a good idea to me, to streamline the process of gaining the legal aspects of the union of two people, such as inheritance and medical care decisions for an incapacitated partner.  Some employers do not give domestic partners, of either sex, the same benefits that they give spouses.  Some employers do not give benefits to spouses.  This should remain a matter between employer and employee.

Marriage is an institution that has been a constant in human societies for thousands of years, the union of a man and woman.  I do not think that definition should be changed.  To me, insisting that the union of same sex couples be called Marriage is an attempt by a small minority of permanently outraged people to force society to accept a lifestyle. In my case, I don’t care what their lifestyle is, it is none of my business, and I do not want words and laws redefined to suit them.

After years of the public indicating their disapproval of same sex marriage in referendums, and courts routinely declaring the referendums unconstitutional, the disapproval margins dropped and the referendums have slowed down.  Now in 17 States, including our Washington State, by popular vote in 2012, same sex marriage is legal.   That is the way the tide is moving and I see no indication that it will reverse.  This is rightly a state issue.

In 2015 the US Supreme Court ruled that state bans on same sex marriage is unconstitutional, so same sex marriage is now legal nationwide.

In truth, I don’t really care  the Marriage part of the Gay issue.  We heterosexuals have already destroyed the sanctity of marriage with our high divorce rate and I have done my part.   I don’t know what we do about that problem, but it is not up to legislators to fix it.

For the same reason that straight men are not allowed to be Girl Scout leaders, I do not believe that Gay men should be Boy Scout leaders.  Our children must be protected from the possibility that those in positions of trust and authority have opportunity to act out sexual attraction to the children in their care.   Sadly, there are many recent examples of people in positions of trust, Catholic Priests, abusing that trust and taking sexual advantage of our children.  The Boy Scout policy preventing Gay men from being Scout Leaders has avoided most of the history of abuse and scandal that now rightly defiles the Catholic Church.   Persecution of the Boy Scouts and similar institutions for this “anti-Gay” policy is wrong because it is not an “anti-Gay policy”.   It is a policy that recognizes reality and fulfills their responsibility to protect the children under their care.

I do not think that abuse of the rights of homosexual people is a problem in our society at this time.   They have a very loud voice, lots of prominent advocates and the mainstream media is eager to beat the drum for them.

I am not particularly interested in this issue, so maybe I am uninformed, but I am not aware of any Federal legislation on this issue that is under serious consideration.

On the other hand, President Obama in his on going social engineering of our Military is reported to be considering executive orders making some kind of accommodation for Trans Gender people to serve or who are serving in the Military.   This is carrying a bad idea way too far.  I could live with the old “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” as long as it was applied with a lot of commander discretion to be able to ignore accidental revelations of homosexuality that got good troops in trouble.   Beyond that I have not been happy with the social engineering changes to the military and I would have opposed them.  Legislation instituting this kind of social engineering would never pass.  Obama making such a change by executive order is lawless.

For the most part, these social engineering changes are being proposed by people who have never served in the Military and would never serve in the Military, since they kind of object to the Military.