Almost two years ago, Jennifer Keeton, a counseling student from Augusta State University claimed that her religious beliefs meant that she should be allowed to treat gay patients according to her faith-based principles. Namely, that she should be able to espouse that homosexuality is a choice and gender is fixed, and treat patients in accordance with that belief. She argued that the school was infringing upon her First Amendment rights by requiring that she treat gay patients correctly and respectfully, and by mandating that she take a remediation program designed to educate her about tolerance. Courts backed up the university on multiple occasions. But now, the state of Michigan has just passed a bill that would have championed Keeton’s cause.
The “Julea Ward Freedom Of Conscience Act,” as it’s appealingly named, says that students of counseling don’t have to provide any services that conflict with their religious beliefs, which can include treating gay clients. The religious belief does have to be “sincerely held,” according to the wording of the bill, but that’s little comfort when the bill so absolutely grants students the right to refuse to counsel anyone their faith deems inferior.
julea ward
A public degree or certificate granting college, university, junior college, or community college of this state shall not discipline or discriminate against a student in a counseling, social work, or psychology program because the student refuses to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of the student, if the student refers the client to a counselor who will provide the counseling or services.
The bill’s namesake, Julea Ward, has a story very similar to Jennifer Keeton’s. She was kicked out of Eastern Michigan University’s counseling graduate program when she “refused to affirm a client’s gay orientation” because of her interpretation of Scripture. And much like Jennifer Keeton, when she sued, the courts upheld the university, not her. But whereas Keeton was roundly demonstrated to be in the wrong by every institution she came into contact to, Ward had the legislative body of the state of Michigan step up to the plate for her.
The Julea Ward Act only applies to students of counseling, psychology, or social work, not licensed practitioners in those fields. For the time being, licensed counselors are still called upon by the law to provide legitimate services to all their clients. But licensed counselors can be hard to get appointments with; for many people, especially if they’re in a university setting, the easiest (and most affordable) counseling resource they have access to might be a local university’s counseling and psychology center, which is often staffed by students. Michigan’s legislature has created a situation where a struggling gay person, possibly even one in crisis or thinking of hurting themselves or others, can be turned away when they finally get the courage to reach out and try to get help.
In November, Michigan almost passed a bill that also essentially sanctified all bullying and verbal abuse, also in the name of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Now it would appear they’ve finally succeeded at creating legislation that, while it doesn’t quite legalize hurting gay people, legalizes refusing to help them. It will be a comfort to Jennifer Keeton to know that all she has to do is move states in order to have all the respect for her religious beliefs she could ever ask for, and a comfort to all the prejudiced counselors out there that their personal faith is more important to the legislature than the wellbeing of queer people.
Disgusting
Once again I find myself loathing the state in which I reside.
These people need to be labelled with the opposite of those “safe space” stickers so we don’t get tricked into believing they will actually do their jobs. An “I don’t believe you exist and/or deserve respect” sticker, if you will.
Fcking Ridiculously! I can’t wait to see how people justify their hateful actions 10-15 years from now (or however long it takes to realize how stupid they are being).
As a graduate student currently enrolled in a school counseling program in Indiana, I’m appalled that this was even considered, much less passed. Obviously at a very basic level this allows counseling students to withhold services and chalk it up to their religious beliefs. But beyond that, the entire purpose of our profession is to help others gain insight into their lives, achieve personal and professional goals, and feel more comfortable and confident in themselves. Counseling isn’t about doing what makes you feel all warm and gooey inside. It’s about HELPING PEOPLE. I consider myself to be a religious person, but that doesn’t mean I would (or should) refuse to work with a client who identifies as an atheist, or with a religion other than my own. After all, this is NOT about the counselor, it’s about the client.
As counselors, we are allowed (and encouraged) to refer clients to other practitioners if we feel we do not have adequate knowledge to meet the client’s needs. But that doesn’t mean you weed out people before you even meet with them because they don’t fit *your* idea of what is morally right.
Furthermore, counseling students should be jumping at the chance to have any and all experiences in the field, which includes working with a diverse clientele. And more than anything, we should abide by the same ethics that licensed counselors all over the country are already bound to.
The absolutely disgusting and ridiculousness of this aside, I’m wondering what point this even serves. This only applies to university students, so what happens when these students start practicing in ~the real world~ and can no longer legally discriminate against LGBTQ individuals? It’s absolutely pointless.
Unless of course Michigan decides to make state-sanctioned hatred acceptable for licensed counselors/therapists outside of universities as well, which would not surprise me.
This is something that I thought, too. Like, these students are going to graduate, start practicing for real, come up against a gay person who wants counselling, and then what? “Well, I never had to do it in school, I shouldn’t have to do it now!” *Cue legislation that sanctions these actions in real practice*
If you ask me, it’s just paving the way for this sort of thing, which (as you said) is disgusting and ridiculous, and could hurt god knows how many LGBTQ people.
*Bangs head on keyboard in frustration*
Based on the things I yell when reading about my home state lately, you’d think the Michigan Legislature was a bunch of rowdy kids sitting in the back seat of my car.
“What’s going on back there?! Don’t make me come back there!”
I am a vegetarian. One time, I worked as a waitress in a place that sold meat. Did I refuse to give people sausages because I had an ethical objection to it? Um… no.
If students have issues talking to people, and they want to go into a job that involves – gasp – people, maybe they should consider a career change. Ugh.
But, theoretically, you could lecture the customers who wanted sausage about the evils of meat and attempt to browbeat them into becoming vegetarians.
“While this restaurant understands your right to eat meat I personally DESPISE YOUR MORAL CHOICES and FEEL THE NEED TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS UPON YOU. Wait where are you going I’M TELLING YOU ABOUT THE EVILS OF YOUR LIFE without fear of being fired!” Just what every establishment wants.
Where’s the law that prevents me from treating homophobes? Not accepting homophobia is one of my sincerely held beliefs. But if someone comes into the hospital riddled with bigotry and pneumonia, you still have to treat them.
This is ridiculous.
“riddled with bigotry and pneumonia” is my new favorite phrase.
But what about my sincerely held belief that Julea is a fucking jerk. Why won’t Michigan enshrine that into legislature.
as a counseling grad student in Michigan, I find this appalling. But, as someone who is in counseling, I would definitely rather be referred to someone who will treat me ethically and non-judgmentally.
yeah, I’m curious about this — there doesn’t seem to be a clause requiring that counselors who feel this bill applies to them refer clients to a more appropriate practitioner, but gosh, i sure hope that happens!
This is my gf’s state. Yet another thing to add to her list of “Why I’m embarrassed to be from Michigan” :(
But what about students who hold those harmful beliefs about religion (and the scope of their future job) and don’t refuse a patient? What about the effects of emotionally destructive counseling/therapy? There should be some kind of quick “dealbreaker” survey to match patients with counselors so no ones time or energy or happiness is wasted. It’d be sad that there’d also be people who wouldn’t want a queer-ally counselor, though.
I agree, I’d rather know up front that my potential counselor is a bigot, then I could find someone else.
Michigan is like that beautiful girl that you love but you know she doesn’t like you that way and she ignores you and doesn’t return your phone calls but you’re just so in love with her hills and valleys.
There are so many good things about Michigan, you guys. Just the politics suck. We need more queers to move here so that we can overthrow this conservative government.
The problem is all the Michigan queers keep moving away!
I was gonna say that I have a love/hate relationship with Michigan, but you made it sound 10x better than I could’ve!
It also seems like election year posturing. All this vaginal probe/freedom to discriminate/suing Homeland Security bullshit happens when it’s time to vote.
And I guess we’re at the point in the party where the people who have discriminated and terrorized shift gears and pretend themselves to be oppressed and aggrieved. It’s gonna be a long 10-20 yrs.
Did you really just use the words “vaginal probe”????
According to the US Constitution, people have freedom to disassociate and that includes counselors and counselors in training, meaning they have a right to recuse themselves from offering services to ANYBODY they feel they can’t work with. Therefore, state of Michigan cannot force them not to dissassociate. This bill would help to enforce freedom of association/dissassociation, guaranteed by the First Amendmentment.
Dear God-
Please protect me from your followers.
Hi yall. I agree with yall that this law is nonsensical, but I also think that properly drawn conscientious objection laws, which protect religious exercise, serve important social objectives. This is clearly not such a properly drafted law. Unfortunately, Christianity (specifically, and society generally) is filled with imperfect people. More to the point, many of those imperfect people act in ways directly contrary to the religious scruples that they claim to be upholding.
In Mathew 22 verses 36 to 40, a Pharisee asked of Jesus: “36 ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'” It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile this commandment to love others as yourself with the vitriol with which many Christians treat gay and lesbian people. This is especially so in light of the fact that Jesus consistently spent time with people that the Jewish and societal traditions of the day considered untouchable. In short, Christians are called to seek the lost and to treat them with love, gentleness, and kindness. Refusing to work with people in the counseling context simply because they are gay or lesbian (etc.) hardly looks like love, gentleness or kindness.
Returning to my earlier point about properly drafted conscientious objection laws, I have a question: but first, a little background information will be helpful. I recently read a New Mexico legal opinion styled Elaine Photography v. Willock. There, a lesbian couple was having a “civil commitment” ceremony, which I take to be something akin to a marriage ceremony. Accordingly, Willock asked Elaine Photography to shoot the event. Elaine refused, not merely because the couple was lesbian, but rather, because Elaine could not in good conscience photograph a ceremony to which Elaine attributed religious significance between two lesbians. Elaine testified that she would happily perform portraits, photograph a birthday party, or otherwise provide her services for gay and lesbian people, but she could not photograph what she viewed as a marriage ceremony between gay and lesbian people. My question is this: Do you view Elaine’s conduct with the same opprobrium as Julea Ward is viewed?
As an aside, Willock won her discrimination suit against Elaine. According to the court, a religious person who engages in commercial activity must leave all religious scruples in her house and not exercise her religion if a statute forbids it (well, that is the effect, if not quite a totally unbiased summary of the court’s holding: I maintain that the facts as described in the above paragraph are impartially presented). The court ordered Elaine to pay about $7,000 to Willock. If I had been Elaine’s counsel, this is how I would have advised her: “38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” Mathew 5 verses 38 to 41. In short, I would have suggested that Elaine double the money damages award as a sign of her good faith toward Willock, and her commitment to live according to her religious views.
One final question: What on earth is an “Auto Straddle?” May you all have a blessed day.
Whatever you want it to be…
as long as it’s queer.
So Geren,
Why do you think that in order for Christians to love gays and lesbians, we must morally approve of their sexual lifestyles? I’m sure that Julea Ward and Elaine would not have any problems with gays and lesbians being their friends, giving them food, socializing with them as with all human beings, which is loving, but it looks like they are asking for Elaine and Julea to agree with them. Btw, in Matthew 5, Jesus said that Christians need to be light of the world and salt of the earth. Could it be possible that this is exactly what Elaine and Julea were trying to be?
What if I don’t morally approve of pretentious people acting like they are morally superior to others, and hijacking the Bible to back up their obnoxious claims? Does that mean I can deny those people equal rights, refuse to treat them, etc., and still claim to be a Christian?
The second part of the greatest commandment is “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Denying others equal rights, while scrupulously holding onto your rights, is the exact opposite of that. Loving your neighbor as yourself IS being the light of the world and salt of the earth. (By the way,you cannot deny equal rights to others if you truly follow the greatest commandments.)
Oh Sam, I didn’t say, nor did I mean to imply that sex outside of marriage is moral. I didn’t say that for Christians to love gays and lesbians well they have to approve the choices of others as being moral. Indeed, I think that morality is objective, not subjective, and that objective morality is discernible. Perhaps more important, though, coercing others to behave morally robs them of the opportunity to affirmatively choose to behave morally.
Rather, I meant to say that the conduct of many Christians is deplorable. Furthermore, it is often hypocritical to focus on the morality of homosexuality while simultaneously neglecting the tragedy of, for example, the divorce rate among Christians, which is as high as the divorce rate among non-believers, and directly contrary to their own professed Christian morality. Also, Christians should focus more on improving the sexual morality of Christians, rather than condemning homosexuals. Now, to be as clear as possible, many Christians do these things well, though some do not, but for whatever reason, the Christians who speak the loudest often blame all of society’s problems (slight hyperbole) on homosexuality (and other assorted phantoms). I hope to dispel some of that perception by demonstrating that not every Christian believes homosexuality to be the root of all evil (which the bible claims is alternatively money, or the love of money).
Part of the problem is that the whole discussion is entirely too emotionally charged, on both sides. Far too often anything that resembles a reasoned discussion associated with homosexuality devolves into ad hominem attacks on both sides, which is to say, name calling. My purpose (or at least my hope) here was to engage in a positive discussion with gays and lesbians that we may come to realize that we have more in common than we might think. Hopefully I can learn more about gays and lesbians and participate in some small way in their community while demonstrating that not all Christians hate homosexuals, even when they disagree on some pretty fundamental things.
The Troll, I strongly suspect that we disagree about what constitutes a fundamental right. More specifically, as I view marriage as a religious institution (it has only been a creature of the secular state for a couple hundred years, though if you count the religious state (officially established state church), it has been a state institution much longer), I don’t think that gays and lesbians should be married. However, marriage aside, there are many very real and tragic rights that are denied to homosexuals. As I am not especially in tune with queer culture and queer thought, I may not know of all the fundamental inequalities. One that I am aware of, and which I find especially galling, is the denial of visitation rights of homosexuals to their dying partners. This is not only easily correctable from a legal standpoint, it is immoral to deny this right to a dying person’s loved ones (gay, straight, or otherwise), especially against the wishes of the dying person.
Disclaimer: I am about the whitest, middle class, 20 something, married hetero, small town Texas (though I now live in Dallas), Christian dude you can meet. I’m not perfect, in fact, far from it though I am trying to become a better person. But I do care about people, and I want to try to improve what little part of the world I can influence. Also, I am something of an amalgam of conservative, libertarian, and progressive policy positions.
If marriage is a religious institution to you, then maybe you should follow that belief to its logical conclusion and not have a civil marriage. But if you have that marriage license from the state, then what you have is a civil marriage whether or not you consider marriage a religious institution. If marriage is not a civil institution in your eyes, maybe you should only have a religious marriage and shouldn’t benefit from the rights and privileges you gain through the civil recognition of that marriage.
Also, fuck reasonable discussion. You’re talking about our lives. Your position isn’t reasonable and it shouldn’t be treated as reasonable.
kd15,
First, I was married before I began to think in depth about much of this stuff. So yes, I do have a civil marriage license granted by the state.
Second, I think that it is important to keep in mind that fundamental rights are very different from privileges. Despite the state’s propensity to dispense with fundamental rights, they ought never to be violated (freedom of speech, association, religion, etc.). Privileges, on the other hand, are transitory and properly within the realm of politics (or perhaps I should say conventional/everyday/dirty legislative politics). That is, if the federal government were to decide that married persons should no longer receive tax breaks, and codified that decision into law, then even though I would miss the benefit, I could not say that my rights had been violated.
Finally, of course I am talking about your lives. How else am I to determine whether my position is or is not reasonable? I never claimed that my position is perfect, or that I am right and you are wrong. It would be very easy to read only conservative or libertarian propaganda and never fully engage in a reasoned decision-making process, but that is something I am unwilling to accept. If gay and lesbian people refuse to engage in conversation with people like me, merely because I currently disagree with you and you consider my position unreasonable, then I will be forced to reach conclusions without the input of the most important constituency involved: the gay and lesbian people whose lives are effected. More specifically, I don’t ask that you view me, or my positions, as reasonable, merely that you engage in reasoned discussions with me. Part of the process of reasoned discussion involves considering unreasonable positions in full, and then determining that they are in fact unreasonable. I am simply trying to test my positions.
And you choose a comment thread on Autostraddle to do so? And this topic? I mean… no one queer or allied, reading this, is going to be in the mood to engage in “reasoned discussion.” It’s infuriating, you know, for us. This isn’t some sort of intellectual exercise.
Just wait for the first time someone tries to use this stupid, wrongheaded law to refuse to treat a Christian for religious reasons…
The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, so it’s not just some privilege you can keep from groups you don’t like.
Also, the point about civil marriage was about you being a hypocrite. You think it’s a religious institution, but are more than willing to take advantage of the perks that come with it being recognized by the state.
Your position is that keeping a fundamental right from a group of people is okay. I don’t know if that’s reasonable in your world, but it’s definitely not in mine.
Oh, and can somebody tell me what an “Auto-Straddle” is? No offense, Marika, but your definition leaves something to be desired…
Oh, I think it’s pretty perfect, but here you go.
http://autostraddle.tumblr.com/post/981380459/what-does-autostraddle-mean-to-autostraddle-an
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=autostraddle&defid=6017946
But really, it’s a site geared primarily towards queer women. Where if you clearly state you are opposed to gay marriage and then expect people to engage in reasoned discussion with you about you denying them their rights, said people will get really pissed off because they see you (rightly) as being patronizing.
Well, guess what. People who don’t support marriage equality are not the nice guys. You don’t get to be nice just because you say you’re nice. It’s not true. And I, for one, am far past the point of reasoned discussion because this is MY life, MY civil rights, that others, such as yourself, don’t believe I should have because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the “institution of marriage,” which throughout history has had very little to do with religion until the Catholic Church decided it would in the Council of Trent in the 1500s. Yay. Instead, it was a tool to solidify family linkages and often indeed to better one’s monetary/property or political position.
You know what, here’s someone who can state this better than me:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/06/11/you-cant-deny-people-their-rights-and-be-nice-about-it/
anything less than giving same-gender couples the same legal rights as anyone else is bigoted. The answer is to either change your opinion, or accept it, but don’t pretend you’re an ally when you’re not.
And yes, AS, I’m mostly really sorry I fed the troll but sometimes you’re just having a terrible day and you can’t take being kicked even further down.
Marika,
This conversation is precisely why I wanted to start a discussion on this site. You just don’t get the diversity of thought from self-selecting like minded people. Thank you for giving me many new things to think about, and pointing me in a new direction of study. Because of your post I looked up a little bit about the Council of Trent and its position on marriage. Admittedly, I only looked at a couple of sights, but I will continue to look into this material. But first, I thought I might share some things which I found particularly enlightening.
Martin Luther, who led the protestant reformation, had some interesting things to say about marriage: “Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church.” (What Luther Says CPH 1959, Vol. 2, page 885) “No one can deny that marriage is an external, worldly, matter, like clothing and food, house and property, subject to temporal authority, as the many imperial laws enacted on the subject prove.” (What Luther Says Vol. 46: page 265.) “Granted, therefore, that marriage is a figure of Christ and the church, yet it is not a sacrament of divine institution; it was introduced into the church by men who were misled by their ignorance both of the subject and the record.” (Luther – ‘The Pagan Servitude of the Church.’)
The sight from which this material comes can be found at: http://whosoever.org/v14i2/marriage.shtml
The sight takes the position that the Council of Trent simply used marriage as a vehicle to increase the power of the church. Certainly, Luther’s position seems to vindicate this line of thinking. As a general matter, I am wary of people who are motivated by increasing their personal power (so that they can lord it over others), and I generally oppose such efforts.
While I am not yet prepared to immediately change my view of marriage after only a couple hours reflection, I remain open to the possibility that I am wrong. Indeed, I would be happy to read any article, book, or paper that you might suggest (I also read each of the posts you cited in their entirety, and I would like to say that I am seeking knowledge and trying to be civil and purposeful, not that I want you to think of me as “nice”).
Finally, I am sorry that you have had a bad day. If I have been obnoxious, pretentious, acted as though I am morally superior to you, or otherwise contributed to you feeding the troll, then I hope you will accept my apology. These were not, and are not among my intentions.
Hey hey,
I for one respect you reaching out to try and learn. I know I’ve done that throughout my life and recognized times I wasn’t welcome. Often times our thoughts are formed on informed decisions but those decisions need to constantly be in flux since the information informing these decisions are constantly changing. Thanks for keeping an open mind but also for expressing what you believe. Although perhaps we could imagine a better forum for this conversation. A lot of people come to this site to escape the microaggressions we face throughout the day for being women, being queer, for being people of color, or for our ownreligious affiliations or lack there of (I myself am Muslim, even though many of my fellow Muslims are anti-gay and even more are anti-gay marriage – I have always found some comfort in my faith despite the antagonism I face from the greater US population). Good luck to you and I hope you continue to allow other perspectives to be incorporated and evolve your informed decisions in the directions you see fit.
Hi Ak,
Thank you. Do you have any suggestions for other sites I might visit? I recognize that I might be blindsiding some people who are looking for affirmation (something few people get enough of) on this site, and that is not what I intend.
Hey Geren,
I don’t have a site off the top of my head, but I do recommend a book; it’s one that was featured on autostraddle before (http://www.autostraddle.com/microaggressions-in-everyday-life-88745/). I think this will show you more about the impact peoples small comments have on entire minority groups. It gets so bad, that it even affects their health. My background is in Public Health, and it is shocking the physical impact that discrimination and prejudice has on the entire health of communities. (Think Infant mortality and life expectancy, as well as chronic disease and certain cancers)
Since you’re admittedly not a person of an oppressed minority group by orientation, faith, or a person of color, the findings may shock you. Often times, majority populations don’t realize that small things, such as words or actions, can change the outlook of smaller tight knit communities.
To draw an example of logic, imagine being a black boy in school, where the teacher skips over you when asking tough questions and over praises you when you know the answer to an easy one. That over praise – though seemingly helpful – is undermining the child’s critical thinking ability, making them potentially lose interest in school. As a result, very few black men go on to higher education – why be part of a system that doesn’t respect you?
p.s. I live in the Dallas area too – you should go check out the Cathedral of Hope (https://www2.cathedralofhope.com/)it’s in the Oaklawn area near downtown where most of the active gay community lives. That church is the largest gay church in the United States, and I am sure they have some answers to your questions. I’ve only been twice, but don’t like going just because I am a firm Muslim and could not accept Jesus the way Christians do (a church is a church, whether accepting of gays or not, they try to convert you when they can) – also, as interesting as the sermons are, I don’t understand some of the biblical references. As a christian, you probably know that Muslims accept Christ, just not as the son of God.
There are some great people out there, I recommend you visit.
This is horrible. One of my best friends sought help at her university clinic for her depression and suicidal thoughts, and I shudder to think what might have happened to her had she been turned away for being queer. She was on the brink, and she needed compassion and understanding, not intolerance and hate. God this makes me so sad.
Ak,
Thank you for your recommendation and understanding. I have purchased the book and will read it as soon as I finish some other books I am currently reading (not to mention some of the things I am reading for school). Perhaps I will see you around town someday. I would like that very much.
Samantha and Tess,
I want to be as clear as I possibly can: I agree with you completely that this law is completely and utterly horrible. It is without any redeeming quality. It is the moral equivalent of refusing to treat someone because they are of a different race. It ought to be condemned and it is shameful that it has ever been considered much less passed by a state legislature. Samantha, I am very glad that your friend was not turned away, and I hope that she has made, and will continue to make, significant progress.
Tess,
Again, I apologize. Profusely. I had no idea that what I was saying (or trying to say) would cause such angst and such hurt. I am sincerely trying to know and understand queer culture, and part of that process necessarily involves dialogue with people who are gay or lesbian. Auto-Straddle seemed as logical a place as any to have that dialogue, but perhaps I was wrong. Do you have any suggestions for somewhere I can speak about queer culture? I already plan to visit Cathedral of Hope, per Ak’s suggestion above. And yes, you are right that not everything can be (or should be) reduced to a purely intellectual exercise. It is not my intention to put gay and lesbian people into an intellectual box on a shelf, and leave it there to gather dust in the recesses of my brain. Rather, I am trying to understand and connect with people, of all varieties, because they are people like me (whatever our dissimilarities), and because I care about people and their well-being. Again, I am very sorry for causing such hurt.
I found this video very helpfull in educating my father, to stop him from being as homophobic as he was, and to stop throwing bibles at me (figuratively) when I tried to talk to him about LGBQT people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSqH9XdRsT8
It’s an hour and a half long, but very informative and interesting.
SERIOUSLY? SERIOUSLY, BITCH? SERIOUSLY?
NO.
I can’t take shit like this anymore. Was it ok for Nazi’s to persecute and kill Jews? No? Then THIS IS WRONG. Was it ok for KKK members to persecute and kill coloured people? No? Then THIS IS WRONG.
When are people going to realise, that in 30-40 years when this will (hopefully) be so foreign and horrifying to peopl, that thay are going to look like fucking bigoted idiots?
I can’t, I really can’t.
I have a cousin who once told me that homosexuality (by which she meant, pretty much any deviation from straight and cis) was worse than murder because “no sin is worse than sexual sin”. Her dad has run for House before, and we live in Michigan.
I’m actually scared to live in my state now.