mikesoh.com » homosexual

mikesoh.com endorses Matthew Berry for VA-8

mike — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:30:08 +0000

With the Republican primary coming up, I had to do some research to find out who I would be supporting to run against the idiotic Jim Moran, who has been “representing” the eighth district of VA since 1991. If elected again, it would be his eleventh term. If there was a better poster child for term limits, I don’t know him.

There are two republicans running in the primary: Matthew Berry and Patrick Murray. Berry is a new-comer to politics and is seeking his first elected office. He is unashamedly homosexual, living with his life partner in liberal Arlington, VA.

Patrick Murray, whose name sounds so familiar but can’t place it, is also running in the primary. Residing in more-blue-than-red Alexandria, VA, Murray is also running for his first elected office. Little is given away about his private life on his website. He is a retired U.S. Army Colonel.

I’ve said this before: I’m a Republican by force, not by choice. What I mean by this is that I’m often more conservative than the Republican party tends to be. Since we live in a two-party system, unfortunately, the only option is the vote for candidates that best represent my views. These candidates, more often than not, side Republican.

Berry and Murray have similar political views. They both have pledged to repeal the Healthcare bill if elected. They stand remarkably close in terms of national defense. I believe the biggest difference comes down to two issues: gay marriage and abortion. And this is where I made my choice.

Berry, who is homosexual, supports legalized marriage for same-sex partners. This is understandable, but something I completely disagree with. I actually ran into Berry when I was having lunch with a friend at Famous Dave’s. When I asked him if he would support federal legislation, he said no, which was surprising. He said that he was a federalist and that question should be left to the states. While I disagree with this notion, I like the fact that he would not support federal legislation to do so, which also means that he would not support legislation to support marriage between one man and one woman. Murray’s stand is that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but agrees with Berry that this should be left to the states to decide.

My stance is that an issue this important should be decided at the federal level with a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman.

Abortion legislation is likely to come up after the election. Something so pisive is never introduced on an election year for fear of political ramifications. However, it’s important to remember candidate’s voting record on these issues.

Berry and Murray both describe themselves as “pro-life” but this can mean many different things to different people. So both of them describe what they would support. Murray believes that abortion should be a “decision that should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her family and her doctor.” Berry, on the other hand, told me that he believes abortion should be made illegal.

While I believe the battle for making abortion illegal has been lost, I believe that Berry’s stance is important. His stance says to me that he believe life is important. It should just be terminated without regard. Abortion supporters will say, “What about a woman’s health?!” The word-choice here is important. Health can mean many things. I’ve heard “stretch marks” be used as a reason to abort a baby. Berry’s stance on this issue made my choice clear.

As a Christian, I believe God values every life, from conception to death. While I believe God would disapprove of Berry’s life-style choice, the fact is that there is still time for God to reveal this sin to him. When a baby is terminated, it is never given the chance to know God. (I’m not going to start a “Does a fetus go to heaven?” debate here.)

I believe God values life far more than he loathes sin. This is the reason Jesus came to save us. While I disapprove of Berry’s lifestyle (and told him so when we met), it doesn’t mean that I hate him or think he’s evil. There are many people in my life whom I believe are not living the life that God had intended. I lived that life for a while. It just means that God is still working on their hearts.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I would vote for a Satan worshiper who believe in the right to life than a Christian who was pro-choice. I am not saying Berry is a Satan worshiper! Let’s make the clear! But the priorities he has placed is important and this key issue made the difference.

This is why I’m asking Christians as well as conservative Republicans to support Matthew Berry in the upcoming primary on June 8th.

Prop 8: Why it’s the correct decision

mike — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:46:15 +0000

The lawsuit brought against CA when voters approved a constitutional amendment should have been thrown out on it’s merits. But the court took it the case and finally ruled on it today. (Full opinion)

Despite what you’ll hear from either the libs or the conservatives, the case is about the constitutional right of the people amending their own constitution. It was not about gay marriage.

The court decision to uphold the initiative is the correct one. The court, ruling 6-1, said:

In a sense, petitioners’ and the attorney general’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it.

This brings integrety to the constitution. It means that any measure approved by the people would be amended as voted.

Consider the opposite: let’s say that the court ruled that the constition cannot be ammended by the people. Prop 8 is void. So what if the LGBT community wanted to pass an amendment saying that marriage is for anyone and everyone? Because the court ruled that amendments by the people must first be approved by the court, people can say that amendment isn’t really the will of the people, fosters racism, insensitivity, etc.

This was a good decision not because it protects marriage, but because it protects the constitution of California.

LTE: Congressman Frank is a hypocrite for condemning incest

mike — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:30:22 +0000

Congressman Barney Frank [D - MA] has done more to damage equal rights than Rick Warren has. While he has harped Obama’s choice of using Warren for his invocation, he denies the rights that he is fight for to others. Congressman Frank, you can’t have it both ways. If his contention is that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, why should incestuous relationships be denied? This goes to show that these ‘pro-civil rights’ groups and congressmen don’t actually want equal rights; they want special rights only to homosexuals. He should openly welcome those who wish to engage in an incestuous marriage, even if he deems it “deeply offensive and unfair”. Massachusetts voters should be keen to remember his hypocrisy come election day.

Submitted to threads {a.t} dcexaminer.com

Where do we draw the line?

mike — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:00:37 +0000

Earlier today, Connecticut joined the ranks of Massachusetts and California to allow gay partners to marry. I’m completely against this notion for several reaons that I plan to spell out later. The question I’m often asked is “How does a gay person getting married make things different for straight people?”

It’s questions like this that shows just how ignorant people can be when they support a position so blindly. Think about that question. It makes several major assumptions:

Changes in marriage laws doesn’t make current marriages any different
Changes made by government do not effect the private lives of citizens
Straight people’s marriages are no better thank gay marriages
The person stating this question assumes that they completely understand why those “rednecks and Christian fundamentalists” are living in the past and don’t care about the rights of others

There is something seriously wrong in our society when dialog and understanding are taken over my attacks and ignorance. I have yet to have a real conversation with anyone who supports gay marriage who doesn’t get defensive and can debate maturely. If you think you can do this, please feel free to contact me.

But let me get to the point. I don’t support gay marriage for one major reason: symantics is no replacement for law.

The debate over gay marriage is not based on facts or a real fundamental right. It is based entirely on emotions and wordplay. Now before you say that I’m making assumptions, allow me to present my case.

When I hear those who support gay marriage talk, the ‘facts’ they present are often misguided. I remember one particular person say, “Well, only 50% of hetrosexual marriages actually last. Don’t you think gay people should be able to marry?” This person completely disregards the notion of why 50% of hetrosexual marriages end in divorse and completely ignores the fact that study after study have shown that a gay couples break up more frequently and more often than hetrosexual couples. According to a recent UCLA study, this number is 50% more likely in gay men and a stagering 167% in lesbian women.

Showing the facts don’t support their case doesn’t work. One person responded, “Well, it should still be their right! Why should hetrosexual couples have more rights than homosexual couples?”

This question shows at face-value that the debate isn’t about science or psycology. It’s about emotions! The “rednecks and Christian fundamentalists” have NEVER argued that they have more rights than homosexual couples. The fact that the question is phrased this way forces “rednecks and Christian fundamentalists” to be on the defensive. And of course, when you’re defensive, you sound more condemning. The reason behind this is that the left has consistantly used rhetoric to stir people to action. “Pro-choice” and “Equal rights” are their mantra. And to an observer, they sound great! Who doesn’t want to give people choice? And who in their right mind would want to restrict people’s rights?

But the question I ask these people is “To what end?”

What has bothered me the most about those who support gay marriage is that they refuse to support pedosexuals and help protect their rights. I will only support gay marriage if and only if EVERYONE gets the same rights and privilages. You see, when people say “equal rights”, they really are saying “special rights” because they won’t admit that “equal rights” would extend to pedosexuals and beastialsexuals. Why, I must ask, do these people not deserve the same rights?

Why is it impossible for a pedosexual to be a kindergarden teacher? When I asked someone this (a gay person, I might add) said, “Well, pedofiles can’t control their urges.”

It wasn’t that long ago that society as a whole believed this about homosexuals too. In fact, homosexuals made the argument that they, in fact, can control themselves and aren’t sexual deviants. So what is it that makes homosexual couples so special? Is it because it’s now considered okay? That it is accepted into main-stream?

The only answer that I’ve been given is no answer at all.

Please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t think hetrosexuals, homosexuals, or even pedosexuals are any different. But the discussion that gay people have made is that they are different. But when people make this argument, it is often misguided. I understand that people feel passionately about this issue. There is nothing wrong with that. But when arguments are based on emotions and rhetoric, you must be prepared to be challenged. Simply saying, “Well, if you love someone, you should be able to get married.”

If love was the only qualification, then I still ask: “Why can’t I marry a rock? I love my rock. I have had sex with my rock. The rock is my beneficiary when I die. Why can’t I marry it?” The response to this question has often been, “So, you’re comparing homosexual relationships to a rock?” And my response is, “No. I’m comparing love to a rock. You cannot prove that my love for a rock is different thank the love between a gay couple or a hetrosexual couple.”

The problem I have with gay marriage is not gay people. It’s that people that support gay marriage aren’t open-minded enough others who are struggling to have “equal rights”. And until that is done, I will continue to oppose gay marriage.