Lesbian Law Prof & Obama Appointee Chai Feldblum Dangerous for America

Georgetown University lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum believes that when same-sex is marriage is legalized, which she argues is both necessary and inevitable, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. She is also one of the authors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would provide special protections for those who choose to base their identity on their same-sex attraction or their disordered desire to do the impossible: change their sex. 

And this is the same Chai Feldblum whom President Barack Obama has appointed to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He used the legal but divisive mechanism of recess appointments, which allow him to appoint people to serve in important government roles without being confirmed by the U.S. Senate. According to the homosexual newspaper, Windy City Times, "Feldblum, as part of the commission, will have considerable influence in the writing of federal regulations to enforce" the deeply troubling ENDA if it's passed.

Feldblum, speaking at a Becket Fund Symposium in December 2005 stated the following:

 

[L]et us postulate, for the moment, that in some number of years an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in this country will have changed their laws so that LGBT people will have full equality in society, including access to civil marriage. Or, indeed, let us postulate that the entire country is governed - as a matter of federal statutory and constitutional law - on the basis of full equality for LGBT people....

Assume for the moment that these beliefs ultimately translate into the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and that provide same-sex couples the same societal supports currently available to opposite-sex couples, including access to civil marriage. . . . [G]ranting this justified liberty and equality to gay people will likely put a burden on those religious people who believe acting on one's same-sex sexual orientation is a sin and who may feel they are aiding and abetting sin if they rent an apartment to a gay couple, allow a gay couple to eat at their restaurant, or provide health benefits to a same-sex spouse....

Let me be very clear...in almost all the situations...I believe the burden on religious people that will be caused by granting gay people full equality will be justified....

That is because I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if "pockets of resistance" to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people....

 

Not surprisingly, following her nomination to the EEOC, Feldblum requested that her name be removed from the subversive document she signed in 2006 entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships," which begins with this troubling statement:

 

We, the undersigned - lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers -- seek to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families. In so doing, we hope to move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics as they exist in the United States today.

We seek access to a flexible set of economic benefits and options regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender/gender identity, class, or citizenship status.

 

The "Beyond Marriage" authors seek to have "Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner" as well as "Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households" be recognized as families and accorded all the benefits of traditional marriages.

Click HERE to watch a short and important video that exposes the radical nature of Feldblum's vision for America, American jurisprudence, and religious liberty. 

And here are the titles of just three of Feldblum's scholarly articles:

  • "Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion" 
  • "The Right to Define One's Own Concept of Existence: What Lawrence Can Mean for Intersex and Transgender People" 
  • "Gay is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More" in which she asserts that "even if gay couples succeed in 'getting marriage,' the gay rights movement may have missed a critical opportunity - a chance to make a positive moral case for gay sex and gay couples. In other words, it will have missed the opportunity to argue that 'gay is good,'" and that "changing the public's perception of the morality of gay sex and of changing one's gender may ultimately be necessary to achieve true equality for LGBT people."

 

If conservatives continue to self-censor, if we refuse to courageously and publicly counter the relentless, pervasive, deafening cultural messages that affirm homosexual acts as moral, we will lose speech rights, religious liberty, and we will see the destruction of marriage and the natural family. 

There's no point now in expressing your opposition to Feldblum's appointment: Obama doesn't care, and the Senate won't be consulted.

Peter-Salt's picture

Show me any hint of evidence that my statement "there is NO evidence" that people are born gay is wrong . It is not enough just to claim I am wrong.
Trying to make animal aberrations of same-sex attraction justify human homosexuality is a nonsense. Two female albatross looking after a chick arises from an inbuilt desire to save the chick. there is no 'romantic love' between them or sexual activity. such examples are a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
As for 'Civil or Human Rights' - they do not automatically include everyone's 'choices and relationships . It is not a human right to marry - you cannot demand you are able to marry - you have to find someone who is willing to marry you - then by mutual agreement, you can marry. Otherwise you can't. You cannot simply demand of anyone or any authority that you have a 'right' to marry.
The idea of ' civil rights ' has been corrupted by those who want their own choices to be normalised - sadly too many governments are acceding to such requests often simply to retain power.
Religion itself is not included but under the right or freedom of association and of thought they are - in civilised societies anyway. Just as homosexuals have a right to association and opinion but not a overriding right to make others accept their unnatural lifestyle.
Society has to decide what sexual practices it accepts, but it must consider the community's best interest and one look at the health risks of anal sex - especially in light of the following extract which says it all - unnatural sex has consequences that society does not need...
10 march 2010 - CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men.
A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.
The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women .
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

The Main Character's picture

Suppose that it is a fact that homosexuality is a choice. Now in this state of mind, as your source suggests, they have a higher chance of getting HIV . Now out of love for your fellow human beings you do not want them to get hurt, understood? And let me also say that this is similar to smoking now. Now to help a smoker, do you deny him of choices that nonsmokers have, and isolate him from everyone else because he has the potential of unintentionally harming others(second hand smoke) ? No, that is irrational you cant help anyone by ignoring and limiting them.

You might say that it is their choice and they deserve what they get but as you boldly stated, "...they have been programmed to be that way by environmental influences." and I'm sure you are aware we do not get to choose what environmental influences we want, especially as kids . Now Im sure your religion (whatever it may be) has some sort of virtue in "charity" and helping those that are troubled. If you are without any faith then as i said before out of love for your fellow human being that you do not want to see injured and out of care for your society.

Now we have settled that you do not help someone by ignoring or punishing and we have settled why you might care. now onto what you could do.You could learn what causes Homosexuality and find a way to help. You could show sympathy and charity. You could those but you certainly cannot say that you are helping society by teaching it that all problems can go away by isolating and limiting them.

von333's picture

I thought it was interesting that you should use the societal response to smoking as an example of your argument.

"And let me also say that this is similar to smoking now. Now to help a smoker, do you deny him of choices that nonsmokers have, and isolate him from everyone else because he has the potential of unintentionally harming others(second hand smoke) ? No, that is irrational you cant help anyone by ignoring and limiting them."

Interesting that you should say that this is irrational when this is EXACTLY what our lawmakers are doing. It started with "smoking sections" where smokers were invited to indulge their "filthy, dangerous habit". Then whole buildings were declared "smoke free zones". Now, in some cities , they're pushing to have whole sections of the outdoors declared "smoke free". Wrong-headed or not, it is indeed "ignoring and limiting them".

To address your concept of love, sometimes the best (and only) response when loving someone is to tell them the truth. If a smoker's behavior is dangerous to himself and others, it is a loving thing to remind him/her of this fact. Ignoring it, pretending it is OK and enabling him/her is, in fact, NOT a loving action.

The Main Character's picture

I apologize for not coming up with a better relation; it came to my mind first. Yes if you say that that is what the lawmakers are doing then they are certainly not helping the smokers but they are helping the nonsmokers.

Now the Lawmakers and Peter Salt are different. Would the lawmakers be doing wrong if they limited homosexuality if they found out that it was like second hand smoking but with HIV instead? To answer that we have to look into what the job of the lawmakers and that is to make laws , and the laws must have constitutional bases(they cant do anything unconstitutional going off the rules of this country).And it seems in the case of smoking the lawmakers have decided that the health of the nonsmoker persons is more important than the smokers freedom .Seems constitutional. Now in this case, if homosexuality was a choice and if it did cause harm like second hand smoke than the lawmakers would be right to limit it.

However, that is much different than the point I was trying to make with Peter Salt because in this supposing, Peter Salt is not a lawmaker. He is just a fellow citizen who wants to help and I have concluded that he would not be helping by limiting and ignoring. Notice how the laws would be rational in limiting homosexuality but Peter Salt would not be. And this is simply because the laws intention includes Peter Salt and in Peter Salts intention it includes only the homosexuals . In better words the laws are helping if they help all they govern while staying true to their principals; while Peter Salt to help society has the injured/needy (in this case homosexuals) in mind. and that is simply because his intentions are to help, and you cannot help those who do not need help, and so the homosexuals are the ones he would help.

I hope this clarified what I was doing for you, for it seemed like you were troubled with something I said. And as for your last comment I must admit I have yet to fully understand what my concept of love is but again in order to help someone you cannot ignore them or play pretend with them.

bhall's picture

Mr. Salt.

After many years of dealing with people, both relatives, and people in business, there is one thing I know beyond any doubt.

There are some people who first, do not want to know that there is a possibility that something just MIGHT be different than they THINK it is.
Second. do not listen to or see an example you provide as grounds for your statement.
Third, IF you did provide undeniable proof, there would still be a reason for your being wrong .

I have also found for my own self respect, I am not going to keep trying to justify my feelings or what I know to at least be true in my life.

One of the most satisfying and enjoyable parts of my life was to experience new things, new views, see what actually happens in someone else's life. Understand that we are all alike in one way, we are all different.

So for what it is worth, be satisfied that you are not alone in your thoughts, there may not be a crowd standing with you, but there are people who understand and identify with you.

Make your point, if you receieve a response that indicates that you are wasting your time. move on.

Living in a box without seeing anything but those interior walls is a sad waste of a lifetime. Don't let it waste yours.

The Main Character's picture

I always appreciate it when some gives me advice . However i cannot say that i understood your whole comment. I have poor comprehension skills, it comes with the generation. but thats not going to stop me.

The part that I dont understand is when you say that if i receive a response that indicates that i am wasting my time. Do you mean that I am wasting my time by replying to those who as you say are still living in a box or are you saying that i am still living in a box. For the later, I hope not I try my best to be as objective as I can. But for the other one I do not think it is a waste of time to debate with those who are in the box.

I am not sure if you are familiar with Plato's analogy of The Cave. in it though, Plato/Socrates states that it is the duty of the philosopher (person who sees the "good") to go back into the cave and help those who are chained. and I take Plato and Socrates word on it. but thats if you meant that.

As you probably know the comment I made was a supposition. I was showing that even if everything Mr.Salt said was true he would still not be helping, because he clearly showed that he wanted to help. Also, I apologize if my comment came of as confusing.

bhall's picture

problems that I can see. And I hope I am not coming across as superior, that comes from my age.There are two times in life when you know everything, early teens and OLD!

Sometimes I get too elaborate in what I am trying to say. I just want to make sure that I am understood,(maybe a reflection of my on comprehension issues, I am sure SolarSanitizer could comment on that one)! In any event, the analogy of the Cave is about what I meant.

There are just some people who seem to live in a box and nothing outside of that box has any value or meaning to them. it does not exist. So if it is in the box they accept it, if not, nothing you can do will change their minds.

And the funny thing to me is that they miss so much by being so closed minded. One can acknowledge something with our agreeing with it.

I guess I must have missed the part where Mr. Salt was showing an interest in "helping"! To me there is a point where discussion ends and it becomes a verbal battle.

My main message was not to be discouraged if you feel strongly about something and you meet a brick wall. Don't let the rejection make you feel like you HAVE to prove that you are right. Life is too short to spend wasting your time on box people.

Now I will have to go read the Plato writing you referred too.

BTW, what generation are you from?

The Main Character's picture

I am from the 90's (I'm 18) so I still have a lot of learning to go through. I really happy you are going to read Plato's Analogy, Its in his Republic book 5 if you want to read the whole thing. Please dont be discouraged but it can be really confusing but I have grown to love Plato and Socrates, they are so rational.

And I just said he wanted to help because I know he is not going to deny that he wants to help, because if he did, him making a comment would have no use. I will keep your words in mind and please send me a message if you get confused by Plato, even though I just know the basics we could figure something out.

Peter-Salt's picture

Rice Klown suggests the fight against colour prejudice is the same as the fight against conservative sexual values.
This is totally wrong .
People cannot change their skin colour - they are genuinely 'born that way' whereas there is NO evidence that sexual orientation is innate or that people are born gay .
People may not chose to be gay, although some obviously do, but they have been programmed to be that way by environmental influences.
Despite the rhetoric of the gay lobby, people do change the sexual identity from being gay to straight, and of course there are plenty of bi-sexual people changing their identity all the time.
It is a troubling statement that peoples sexual choices should override the moral values, not just of most religions, but also most nations to date. Nations that have always known that same-sex sexual activity is biologically unnatural.

bhall's picture

and if you can give me a real answer I will acknowledge my acceptance.

EXACTLY WHEN IN YOUR LIFE DID YOU DECIDE TO BE HETEROSEXUAL? And in that same vein, what would be the reason to DECIDE to make that change .

How is it that you can be an expert on something you know nothing about. If making a change was possible, you had better keep your guard up, you may wake up in the morning with gay all over you.

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

 

randomness