Thursday, July 20, 2006
The Great “Moo” Controversy
Does a puppy that says “Moo” prove anything?
I am a near native of Colorado Springs (we moved here in 1975). Since that time Colorado Springs has been known for a lot of things: The Air Force Academy, NORAD (for you War Games fans), and of course Pikes Peak. But in 1992 Colorado Springs became (at least in certain circles) “The EpiCenter of Hate.” Little ole’ us?
That year, in response to a proposal to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Out of that situation the a group, spearheaded by a local car dealer and some Focus on the Family employees (which had just moved to the city in 1991) got on the ballot a state-wide initiative known as Amendment Two. All the political prognosticators said that the initiative would fail. Few really understood the initiative (it simply said that sexual orientation could not be the basis of anti-discrimination policies anywhere state-wide). Well, you must remember that election night 1992 saw the election of Bill Clinton, the first Democratic presidential candidate to win since the 1976 election. State-wide Democrats did quite well in Colorado, with Ben Nighthorse Campbell (then a Democrat) winning in the Senate, and Roy Romer winning re-election to the governorship. At the headquarters of the anti-Amendment Two campaign, they likewise expected a huge victory for their side.
But something strange happened on the way to the election returns. Amendment Two won in the state-wide race, despite the Democratic sweep (Democrats were almost unanimously against the initiative), and Amendment Two won. This began a battle that has seen only a few ceasefires since 1992.
The amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court of both the state of Colorado and the United States. As a legal measure, the amendment was an utter failure for those who supported it (writer confession – I did indeed vote for the amendment in 1992). In fact, the outcome of that case has been cited in several other court decisions at the various levels of the legal system, and has been pointed to by pro-gay marriage as affirming that gay marriage cannot be outlawed by constitutional provision (except of course, to the U.S. Constitution).
Since 1992 the tension in Colorado Springs has been quite thick. During the mid-1990s we elected as our mayor a woman, Mary Lou Makepeace (whose daughter I grew-up with), who won initial election thanks to a packed field and the failure of the retiring mayor (Bob Isaac, a legend in the city) to clearly throw his support behind a candidate. During her reign as mayor the city moved strongly in the liberal direction, despite the fact that Colorado Springs may well be one of the, if not the most, conservative cities in the whole country. One of these measures was extending medical benefits for city-employees “partners.”
All of this changed when things became clear, and a new mayor was elected, and the “progressive” efforts were overturned. Now, in the year 2006, the state is looking at passing a state-wide amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman.
Wow, that is a lot of background! What does all of this have to do with “Moo”?
Well, a large, well-funded group, the Gill Foundation (one of the nation’s leading homosexual lobbying groups), with its new leader, yep, Mary Lou Makepeace, last month started a campaign featuring an adorable puppy who says “Moo.” The ad’s theme, and the website that it directs the view to is http://www.borndifferent.org. Get it, this puppy was born different, it “Moos” and because of that it makes him an outcast. Isn’t that horrible? The ads appear on television, in the newspaper, on billboards, on movie screens, and…hanging as banners from city-owned light poles! Hence the controversy…
Today, Focus on the Family (whom I must confess I am not the biggest fan of, despite the fact that they are co-religionists, and which I do appreciate for many of the things they do) launched its counter-moo campaign, with a basset hound that goes, yep, “Woof.” I am not sure if we had to have a counter-campaign, but, well, that is pretty much to the point.
So what about the controversy?
1) First off, should the banners hang from city owned light poles? The obvious answer is, no! And I don’t just say that because they are political slogans with which I disagree. The city should not have “Buy a Gun” banners hanging from the poles. Nor should it have images of the Ten Commandments. Or any other political message. This is shared space, it is, by our Supreme Court’s ruling, neutral space. I don’t think that the city should alternative with “Woof” and “Moo” banners either.
Now MaryLou Makepeace is saying, “we just want to stimulate dialogue.” Which, beyond the fact that their website is not discussion but advocacy, is simply not the role of government. You want dialogue, buy your billboards, ads on television and radio. Bring together a panel to discuss the issue. But don’t ask the city to provide free advertising for your pet issue.
2) This advertisement campaign is clearly aimed at children. Lets not fool ourselves. The Gill Foundation picked a puppy because everyone likes puppies, but the ad campaign is done in such a way that is clearly targeted at younger people. They want to create not simply tolerance, which is a good thing (to each their own within the privacy of their own lives), but embrace. They want to be viewed as equally normal, just as natural as anyone else. They are intentionally targeting younger people because it is clear based on the votes again and again, even in liberal states, against gay marriage. The homosexual agenda is nothing if not longsuffering. They are willing to keep coming back year after year until they find the right population group to win the battle (I am a member of the PCUSA, and we saw this year after 30 years of failure a victory for the pro-
homosexual ordination lobby).
3) The ad campaign is simply “too clever” by half. I don’t know if this qualifies as part of the controversy, but I simply have to point this out. The ad campaign is too clever. It misses the mark. I have had a lot of dogs in my life, been around even more. You know what…never heard one say “Moo.” Now, I am sure that one could teach a dog to say “Moo” (I did love the movie Babe). But I have never seen a dog born that naturally says “Moo.”
Now, the Gill Foundation folks clearly are trying to make the case that homosexuality is genetic reality, not a learned behavior (and therefore must be accepted and cannot be changed). First off, lets be honest…there is no substantial study that affirms this. Every time that the homosexual lobby brings out a study, it is looked into and in-fact does not show that homosexuality is a genetic trait (if one identical twin is gay, the other must be…in every case, it can not be otherwise if it is genetic).
Quite honestly, I think the homosexual lobby has already won this battle. Most people seemingly have come to believe that it is indeed a genetic factor, not a behavior chosen. The fact is that there is substantial evidence of the sociological factors in homosexuality, but people I think chose the idea of homosexuality being genetic because it means they don’t have to take a stand against it. And, of course, for it to be genetic, it would have to be (and please pardon the word choice) a genetic defect, because homosexuality is by its nature, not a reproducing behavior.
So, in the end, even without Focus on the Family coming out with their dog that goes “Woof” I think the ad campaign is actually hurting their argument…unless they can produce a whole litter of puppies that starting mooing.
Now, you can probably tell that I am not in favour of the homosexual agenda. I am however against such the criminalizing of homosexual behavior (I think sodomy laws are horrendous), and I do not believe that people should be fired based on their sexual orientation (except for security and religious reasons). I am a little less strong on housing discrimination, since the idea of forcing people to allow what they understand as sin (and here, only religious grounds should be allowed) under their roofs (we do after all, have a First Amendment which gives people the right to practice their religion). I think that there should be some sort of official registry so that homosexual partners can name each other as inheritor, visitor when sick, and be allowed to make funeral arrangements. I can even be comfortable with the idea of extending medical coverage to everyone (no discrimination based on not being homosexual) that lives with you under your roof. I am very libertarian on most of these issues…because I see no compulsion in religion (I cannot expect those who do not follow Jesus to see their behavior as sin) and I believe the U.S. Constitution is intended to give maximum liberty in private matters.
However, societies do have to encourage that which is in their own best interest. Marriage serves society by providing a safe (okay, more safe) environment for the raising of children. And so, as the recent New York State Supreme Court ruling, society has the right to regulate marriage to serve its purposes.
Another area of controversy has been pro-gay lifestyle groups on high school campuses. After all, the argument goes, these kids are already gay and need as much affirmation as they can get. Why these needs to happen on school grounds is never explained. When we look back over the past fifty years of sexual education, the discussion of sex has been resolutely a failure in the school setting. Perhaps sex and sexuality should simply be absent from schools altogether (and don’t go hysterical on me about kids learning things the wrong way, does anyone think the heavy teen pregnancy rates we have today, heavy sexually transmitted disease count among tends, and high-levels of teen sexual engagement can actually be any worse if we removed sex-ed from schools).
People like the Gill Foundation simply want to win people over to their side. Great, that is what makes our country so interesting. But don’t do it by focusing on young people (who can’t vote and don’t have the intellectual maturity to process the arguments) and don’t do it on the city’s dime. And one wonders, if there is indeed a “gay gene” how the Gill Foundation will feel when babies are aborted because they are “gay,” or, God-forbid, we get to the point where we can genetically alter embryos, and the gay-gene is switched off. Hmm, do you think then that the Gill Foundation might say, “There is no gay gene!”
I trust that in time, Colorado Springs will move past this “Moohaha” and get back to being known not for hate (which we are not) and for our 312 days of sun and great mountains (which we do indeed have).
The Roving Theologian.
