Gay Families Sign Up For White House Easter Egg Roll
by KevinJanuary 20th, 2006
This could be interesting:
More than 100 gay families have signed up to attend the White House’s annual Easter egg roll in April.
“It will help Americans see real gay, lesbian and transgender headed families,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Pride, one of the groups spearheading the event.
This is the first year Family Pride has organized gay families to participate in the event.
Chrisler said some “fringe groups” have attacked them. “The right always gets very concerned when LGBT parents show up with their children,” she said. “The more we are the same, the less potent the arguments are for discriminating against us.”
Does the White House tick off the James Dobsons of the world, or does it publicaly tell the children of gay couples that they are unclean and unworthy of being treated like other children?
As an aisde, who asked this and what organization does he work for?
The only response from the White House was in Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s briefing on Wednesday. A reporter asked McClellan about a gay rights group attending the Easter event “as a way to show the nation their so-called families.”
The reporter inquired, “Will the president take any measures to prevent these activists from using this non-political event as a way to push their agenda on the rest of us?”
Categories: Culture |
Kevin: (As an aisde, who asked this and what organization does he work for?)
“The only response from the White House was in Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s briefing on Wednesday. A reporter asked McClellan about a gay rights group attending the Easter event “as a way to show the nation their so-called families.”
The reporter inquired, “Will the president take any measures to prevent these activists from using this non-political event as a way to push their agenda on the rest of us?”
Fred: Was there a response from the White House? Is a reporter’s question now a White House response? All I saw in the above was a reporter’s question, not a White House response.
What is wrong with the question? Isn’t the whole purpose of the effort to draw attention to the homosexual agenda?
BTW, no one I know has ever suggested that children who are forced to live in immoral surroundings are unclean. Quit making up things.
Fred may be right. Being raised in immoral surroundings does not necessarily imply uncleanliness. There are many children who, despite being raised by conservative Republicans, grow up to be well-adjusted adults.
Kevin,
I’m not sure why you said the following:
This is an ignorant and flagrant comment, because not even Dobson, or your beloved Robertson/Falwell and the like would cast these children as “unclean” and “unworthy of being treated like other children” by association.
First, the general accusation could me made that, from a Christian ideological perspective, we are all “unclean” because the Christian belief is that we are inherently sinful and born into sin.
Second, where is there a Biblical mandate to treat persons unequally? Why punish the child for disagreeing with the behaviors of GLBT parents? Instead, Jesus instructs Christians in John 13:34 to “…Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” Loving someone does not mean that you agree with their lifestyle choices, particularly if you feel it is sinful; nonetheless, the balance is that the model Christian should hate the sin, but love the sinner and treat him/her with respect and dignity. Clearly these children are not “guilty” by association.
The real issue is whether or not children from GLBT families grow up to be as well adjusted and as “normal” and “successful” as children from two parent families, single parent families, or another combination thereof. Some of my concerns regarding children raised in any alternative family structure besides the traditional two-parent heterosexual marriage is that they might be less likely to have the best chance for success emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, and physically. For instance, a recent study suggests that family structure may affect children’s educational outcomes. The GLBT family structure appears largely ignored - further studies should consider this population.
Fred -
The linked article has the response:
“Well, this event is a time to celebrate Easter and to have a good family celebration here at the White House,” McClellan replied. “And in terms of any other details about it, I think it’s still a few months off, so we’ll talk about it as we get closer. I’ve seen a couple of reports about it; I don’t know how extensive that reporting has been. But this has been a family event for a long time and the president always looks forward to this event.”
Thanks. The comment as quoted made no sense.
I was a Republican for 25 years because I believed in a smaller Federal gov’t and fiscal responsibility. I did nor agree with the conservative social agenda, but for me other issues outweighed it.
What put me over the edge was widespread Republican opposition to gay marriage. This is such blatant discrimination I just couldn’t overlook it anymore (not to mention the Republican party had moved away from fiscal responsibility).
I don’t agree with Kevin’s attribution of a question from the press corps as an administration stance on the Easter egg hunt, but I think we all know this issue is causing great concern within the White House. Some day in the future we will look back on events like this as the last vestiges of government discrimination against gays. For me that day can’t come too soon. (And I don’t want to hear about anyone’s religious beliefs on the subject. You are entitled to your homophobic prejudices in church - but keep them the hell out of my government.)
I am not expecting to see any White House attempt to counter this, nor am I expecting to hear any Dobson criticism of the White House for that inaction. If I’m wrong, I’ll be very suprised and disappointed. I am expecting Dobson to complain about the gay, lesbian, and transgendered organization’s actions.
Another thing that may disappoint me, though not suprise me so much, is if some of the gay, lesbian, and transgendered families who sign up for it are fringe lunatics who use the event as a chance to shock Middle America; there’s a few in every movement, and they come out of the woodwork for chances to offend or annoy their percieved enemies.
Ted: “but keep them the **** out of my government.”
Fred: Last time I checked the government was not your personal government. I think people still have the right to voice their opinions and try to sway people over to those opinions. Hopefully, people such as you will not be able to eliminate opposition voices as you seem to want to do.
Fred: I think people still have the right to voice their opinions and try to sway people over to those opinions. Hopefully, people such as you will not be able to eliminate opposition voices as you seem to want to do.
wk: On the contrary, it is the the current government that wishes to stifle dissent and discussion in public forums, not to mention their fellow travellers in the Right Wing Media.
Hogwash! What liberals want is to dissent and then not have anyone respond to them and point out the vacuous nature of their dissent. A response is taken as “stifling dissent.” Get used to it. The days of cowering to liberals and the main stream media are over.
Fred: “Last time I checked the government was not your personal government.”
Fred, Please. I know you are not that dense. I was not being literal. I was expressing emotion. Racists are (relatively) free to express their opinion. So are neo-nazis and anyone else who who would like to subjugate others. I’m totally fine with that. But I don’t subscribe to the tyranny of the majority. Discrimination is wrong and does not belong as part of any government policy.
As for Kevin’s attribution of the reporter’s question, I initially misread his post and I apologize to Kevin for what I wrote. It was clearly off-base.
If a man has 3 children, and has a life partner that happens to be from a family of sheep, would it be ok for all 5 of them to come and look for Easter eggs? Would this, too, help Americans to learn to accept deviant sexual behavior?
Puhleeze! Who is pushing an agenda on who here?
Why is it this discussion invariably is extended to beastiality by the Right? I just don’t get it.
Ted, perhaps Sen. Santorum could answer that.
Ted,
I gather from your reply that you feel bestiality isn’t normal. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I guess that begs the question; Are you saying that anal sex between two men is normal?
Gay group’s Easter plan unsettles conservatives
NEW YORK — Three months before the annual Easter egg roll at the White House, the usually fest
From the NY Times, via Political Animal:
The neighbor who was the Wrights’ earliest on-camera antagonist — Jim Stewart, 53, who is heard in an early episode saying, “I would not tolerate a homosexual couple moving into this neighborhood” — has confided to the producers that the series changed him far more than even they were aware.
No one involved in the show, Mr. Stewart said, knew he had a 25-year-old gay son. Only after participating in the series, Mr. Stewart said, was he able to broach his son’s sexuality with him for the first time.
“I’d say to ABC, ‘Start showing this right now,’ ” Mr. Stewart said in an interview at his oak kitchen table. “It has a message that needs to be heard by everyone.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/21/arts/television/21welc.html?ei=5094&en=c9dd0688b64e8728&hp=&ex=1137819600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all
The Truth (sic):
What does “normal” have to do with it? My point is some people (apparently you are one of them) are fixated with bestiality.
Also, this thread was not addressing sex at all until you came along. Perhaps you need to find an outlet for all these thoughts running around inside your twisted little mind.
Well Laura Bush’s office said that she believes the egg roll should be open to any family. So it looks as though her office may be willing to go up against the psycho religious right. One small step for common sense from that building?
In the long run, it probably won’t matter, her office can take the high road while FOX news and their cronies drum up the “death of christianity by the godless left” part II. And to think I thought this nonsense got left behind after Christmas.
I have already enlisted in the War on Easter. I don’t want to be embarassed being asked 20 years from now “What did you do in the War?”
Let’s see if we hear of anyone saying this event should not be open to GLT families; personally I can’t imagine anyone like say James Dobson saying such a thing. As a member of the religious right, I think the psycho religious right is vastly more prevalent in the Left’s imagination than in the real world.
http://www.stripteasecomic.com/d/20020524.html
EC
You are really digging. Was the question at the press confernece not asked? Have you not commented in a post in which a representativ eof the religious right is quoted attacking this decision and where the people who organized it are getitng hate mail?
Kevin, there’s a considerable difference between “I don’t want GLT families attending this children’s event” and “I don’t like organizations spearheading attendance at a children’s event with avowed intent to show America something”. I feel that your lack of appreciation of this distinction is due to the considerable zeal of your commendable dedication to equality before the law and in society, and further elaboration on my part is pointless.
For what it’s worth, if anyone tries to officially prevent them from attending, I’ll be on your side.
Ted,
Are you saying that homosexuality has nothing to do with sex?
There is no bestiality fixation here. Deviant sexual behavior is well… deviant sexual behavior. If homosexuality is not deviant isn’t it then “normal”?
You accuse me of having a twisted mind when I bring up something that the left feels is a beautiful, virtuous, honorable and righteous thing. By you saying I have a twisted mind you are actually saying that homosexuality is twisted are you not?
Why are you afraid to answer the question? I will pose it again. Do you feel anal sex between two men is normal?
Sweet Mary, Joseph and Baby Jesus. You right wingers need to lay off the bestiality. It will make you blind.
To put it another way, who cares what 2 consenting adult HUMAN BEINGS do in the privacy of their own home? GW Bush excluded. Cuz we know he ain’t getting nothing.
Kevin, there’s a considerable difference between “I don’t want GLT families attending this children’s event” and “I don’t like organizations spearheading attendance at a children’s event with avowed intent to show America something”.
Yeah, Kevin. There’s a difference between GLT families attending this event and GLT families arranging to attend this event. It’s only the latter he has a problem with.
truth: “Why are you afraid to answer the question? I will pose it again. Do you feel anal sex between two men is normal?”
I’m not sure how to respond. I am being challenged to a dual of witts by an unarmed opponent. I believe the best course of action is to let your post stand on its own merit. Your words make my case better than I ever could.
Angus, I disagree, so I must be evil. It’s impossible that I could mean what I say. It’s inconceivable that anyone could dislike using a children’s event for political ends unless motivated by hatred for those using the event. After all, don’t the ends always justify the means?
EC, I didn’t call you evil. But what is it that you consider “political” about this? What is it that you consider inappropriate?
It’s not the participation itself. Fine. It’s not the organized participation, since you object to my gloss on your comment. So what is it?
Let’s say an organization for families caring for foster children decided to co-ordinate partipation by their members in the Easter Egg Roll. Let’s say they contacted their membership, made up tee-shirts, and sent out a press release saying that they were participating as a group. Let’s say they posted something on their website about the importance of being visible as foster parents. Would you complain? Would you be offended by their “avowed intent to show America something”?
I suspect not. In fact, I suspect that you’d have never heard about their efforts, because that kind of thing happens all the time, and it rarely makes the papers.
In fact — and I swear I didn’t know this when I wrote the above — the Bush White House has extended specific invitations to members of certain organizations at least twice in the past. In 2005, the WH set aside hundreds of tickets for participants in Big Brother/Big Sister and other mentoring organizations, and in 2003 the Roll was open only to members of the military and their families.
Didn’t the White House have an “avowed intent to show America something” on those occasions? And if so, did you object at the time?
Not that he needs me to defend him, but I have found EgregiousCharles to be a very straightforward, and apparently honest poster on this forum. I don’t agree with some of his positions, but when he states his opposition to this event as he has, I for one take him at his word.
Ted,
Your predictable attempt to set yourself up as one with superior wit is a very transparent way to run around the issue.
Your refusal to take a stand on whether homosexuality is deviant, wholesome or somewhere in-between is hardly making a case for wit. It is simply dodging an issue while putting up a feeble smokescreen.
That’s ok though. I really didn’t expect much more from ya!
Peace.
Angus, I read your gloss on my comment saying I objected to GLT families arranging to go, as implying that there was no way GLT families could go that I’d like. That’s not the case.
It’s also not the case that I think this is politicizing because I don’t like the cause. If it were a controversial cause I liked, such as gun owning families doing the same thing to try to gain public acceptance, I’d also disapprove. (To get an idea why that example, see here
http://www.askingsaveskids.com/.)
It is true that it’s politicizing because there’s controversy connected with political issues of particular importance to GLT families, such as gay marriage. It’s true that it’s controversial because there are people on the other side of the issue. It’s even sort of true that I’m on the other side; although I oppose government interference like the federal marriage amendment, I do not personally regard GLT marriages as being true marriages in God’s eyes. (Also quite a few hetero marriages). True, I wouln’t object to your foster families example, unless there were some kind of controversy attached; say, some kind of controversial bill changing the rules of inheritance for fostered children was bandied around.
What’s false, and a nasty, paranoid falsehood, is that I or the right wing in general would prefer GLT families to stay home or not be seen.
I have commented here before about my opposition to, for example, the FMA or sodomy laws; though it’s not one of my hotbutton issues, so I only rarely say anything about it. The only time I’m aware of opposing legal ideas favored by GLBT groups are hate crimes laws, for the reasons here:
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2005/10/hate-crimes-what-happened-to-equal.html
(I think this solution is superior:
http://pinkpistols.org/)
Considering the reactions here and in the other thread just to not liking this form of publicity, I am rather reminded of the opinion of this gay blogger (like Zendo Deb of TFS Magnum, another of my regular reads):
This administration will find some way to use this to turn our attention away from the real issues: the war they lied us into, the murder of innocent thousands, the cuts in programs to the vets they claim to love, the cuts in ANYTHING that prevents us from becoming a 3rd world country. 85% of this nation is 2 paychecks from homeless. I guess when the conservatives (yeah, right) have to push people living in boxes off their lawns to get in their SUV’s they’ll wish they had not acted so holy and rightous and just. Gay families ARE families. It’s too bad the right wing can’t be as Christian as it claims and accept everyone as a child of God.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Also, blah, blah, blah, blah. In conclusion, blah, blah, blah, blah. I will continue my democrat talking points later.
Truth,
I didn’t respond to you because you seem to be incapable of distinguishing between relationships and sex acts. This thread is about relationships. I’m willing to discuss relationships. This thread is not about sex acts. I am unwilling to discuss sex acts. Can you understand this?
And please don’t regurgitate what you wrote before about the two being inseparable. Is there a need to run down all possible heterosexual sex acts and pass judgment on them as a requisite step to evaluating the “traditional” family? Should we discuss the prevalence of divorce (50%) or lack of monogamy (80%) when evaluating traditional marriages? No, no, and no. They are irrelevant. I apply the same standard to non-traditional families.
My stance is simple. How consenting adults choose to engage in relationships is their business, not mine. What they do has no bearing on my life. Their lifestyle does not enhance nor does it detract from mine. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, not just for those that meet certain criteria that you or some church establishes. My understanding of sociology is that your narrow view of acceptable human behavior has been confined to brief periods and specific cultures. For most of human history on most of the planet, people have been considerably more open-minded than you and yours. Lighten up Truth; you will be amazed what you can accomplish when you are not devoting all that energy to hate.
Ted,
I hate to burst a bubble of wit such as yours but I’m afraid this thread is about homosexuality.
The relationship is either a byproduct of desire - or - desire is a byproduct of the relationship. I don’t care which order you choose but when you grow up you will realize that sex is an important part of the overall process. When you stop being afraid to consider sex you can then determine whether it is clean, wholesome, moral, acceptable and normal.
Who said anything about hate besides you? For purporting to be as accepting as you say you are you sure have trouble accepting points of view other than your own. I have worked with many homosexuals over the years and we have shared professional and mutual respect. As a matter of fact I have hired homosexuals not because they are that way but because they are qualified for the job.
Now you have melted down to the tired liberal tactic of name calling when you have no argument. Now, run home, grow up and come back in about 10 years when you are ready to answer the question. Better still… I’ll answer it for you. Homosexual sex is not normal. (We call that taking a stand).
Truth,
The thread is about gay families signing up for the Easter egg roll. It’s about families. Relationships. Not sex. Families can exist with or without sex. People can engage in sex without being a family. Sex does not define a family or a relationship.
Again, this thread is about gay families with kids. The vast majority of which are comprised of women. Your focus on anal sex (which as we all know is a common practice in the straight community as well - I guess we are all going to hell) is telling. I choose not to discuss sex because it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Your “stand” is that you consider homosexual sex to not be normal. My “stand” is that how consenting adults choose to engage in relationships is their business, not mine. I find it laughable that you find yours to be the mature one.
If you gain more perspective, you will realize that what you or I consider to be normal is irrelevant to the rest of the world. Normal varies from age group to age group, from gender to gender, from sexual preference to sexual preference, from society to society, from one time in history to another, from one location to another. To base your stance on a judgment of what is normal is to stand on shifting ground. Why not aim a bit higher? Choose altruism over normalcy.
Not to mention the fact that “normal” and democracy are orthogonal concepts. Equal protection is all about rising above judgments on normalcy.
Your statement about “hiring homosexuals” is one of the more pompous, ridiculous things I have read on this blog. And, for your company’s sake, I hope you are more astute in assessing potential hires than you have been in deducing my age.
Truth,
It occurs to me that I may have misjudged you. I don’t believe you have actually stated your position on gay rights, just gay sex.
If you believe homosexual sex is wrong or abnormal or unwholesome or whatever, AND you believe gays are entitled to the same rights and benefits under the law as straights, including spousal and family benefits, then I apologize. I have no problem with that, none whatsoever.
Ted,
Try as you may, you are wrong again. This thread is about homosexuals with an agenda pushing themselves on everyone else. The basis of the whole issue is homosexuality. To help you define whether homosexual sex is acceptable I used several other words in the context of ‘normal’. Clean, wholesome, moral, acceptable…
My statement on hiring homosexuals would tend to show there is no hate involved here. You started that with the name calling. Calling me pompous does nothing more than lower you, once again, to yet more name calling.…Yawn.
Your refusal to take a stand on what is deviant sexual behavior sets you up for your ‘anything goes’ attitude. Here is why. If you were to admit that homosexual sex is not clean, wholesome, moral, acceptable etc you would then be forced to ask yourself if this is the best setting for children. Can’t you see that? Children are at stake here. If someone with children practices bestiality, that must be ok with you too. After all, it’s their business, not mine man…
Truth,
Sorry, I can tolerate one bestiality argument. Two is over the limit. I’m done with you.
Ted,
First you say “I am being challenged to a dual of witts by an unarmed opponent.”
Then you say “This thread is not about sex acts. I am unwilling to discuss sex acts. Can you understand this?”
Later on you start talking about how some heterosexuals engage in certain sex acts. “Your focus on anal sex (which as we all know is a common practice in the straight community as well …)”
You fell to the level of name calling more than once (which doesn’t reinforce your contention that you are grown up).
You lost the duel of witts (sic) my friend. You lost it because you did talk about sex after all. I guess this makes you one that has less wit than an unarmed opponent. How you lost is telling. You are willing to talk about sex in the “straight” (normal) community but not the homosexual community. This strongly leads me to believe you don’t feel that homosexual sex is clean, moral, normal or healthy. That makes it an unhealthy environment for children. That is why homosexual ‘partners’ should not, under any circumstances be allowed to adopt and then force children to be their political pawns.
As long as there aren’t any hetro/homosexual signs of affection, sign carrying, alcohol slinging, poddy mouth, tongue lashing, racist knuckle-heads…then I don’t care if they roll eggs next to my children! We don’t have to agree with our neighbor…but we do need to love them! This special day is about the family and our children. We ALL individually will stand before Him on judgement day, I will answer for my own shortcomings…I will not judge you even though it does make the hair on the back of my neck stand up when Dick kisses Bill instead of Jane!
At the top of this thread this statement appears:
More than 100 gay families have signed up to attend the White House’s annual Easter egg roll in April.
“It will help Americans see real gay, lesbian and transgender headed families,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Pride, one of the groups spearheading the event.
This is the first year Family Pride has organized gay families to participate in the event.
Chrisler said some “fringe groups” have attacked them. “The right always gets very concerned when LGBT parents show up with their children,” she said. “The more we are the same, the less potent the arguments are for discriminating against us.”
My issue is this. I have attented the Egg Roll 3 years with my husband and two daughters. There may have been gay families attending during those years, I do not know. Do you know why I dont know? Because they attended just like everyone else. Dressed in fitting clothes and not drawing attention to them selves. They state that “The more we are the same, the less potent the arguments are for discriminating against us.”
But they will not be making themselves the same. They plan on coming in Logo T-Shirts and being part of a group. This contradicts the whole issue they are making as far as being the same.
They then state that“ It will help Americans see real gay, lesbian and transgender headed families,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Pride
I mean make up your mind, do you want to be segregated or not.
If you are going to go to the Egg Roll, then GO, just like everyone else, no one has ever kept that from happening. If you have a child in tow, then you can get in. I dont see this whole point of starting this campaign to go as a large group to make a point. The only point your making is that you are ignorant in thinking that an Egg Roll will make you feel better about yourself and your family.