Supporting Love…

Archive for the ‘regular’ Category

June 15, 2009

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I have had the privilege of meeting you on several occasions, when visiting the White House in my capacity as president of the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights organization representing millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people across this country. You have welcomed me to the White House to express my community’s views on health care, employment discrimination, hate violence, the need for diversity on the bench, and other pressing issues. Last week, when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.

So on behalf of my organization and millions of LGBT people who are smarting in the aftermath of reading that brief, allow me to reintroduce us. You might have heard of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. They waited 55 years for the state of California to recognize their legal right to marry. When the California Supreme Court at last recognized that right, the octogenarians became the first couple to marry. Del died after the couple had been legally married for only two months. And about two months later, their fellow Californians voted for Proposition 8.

Across this country, same-sex couples are living the same lives that Phyllis and Del so powerfully represent, and the same lives as you and your wife and daughters. In over 99% of U.S. counties, we are raising children and trying to save for their educations; we are committing to each other emotionally and financially. We are paying taxes, serving on the PTA, struggling to balance work and family, struggling to pass our values on to our children—through church, extended family, and community. Knowing us for who we are—people and families whose needs and contributions are no different from anyone else’s—destroys the arguments set forth in the government’s brief in Smelt. As you read the rest of what I have to say, please judge the brief’s arguments with this standard: would this argument hold water if you acknowledge that Del and Phyllis have contributed as much to their community as their straight neighbors, and that their family is as worthy of respect as your own?

Reading the brief, one is told again and again that same-sex couples are so unlike different-sex couples that unequal treatment makes sense. But the government doesn’t say what makes us different, or unequal, only that our marriages are “new.” The fact that same-sex couples were denied equal rights until recently does not justify denying them now.

For example, the brief seems to adopt the well-worn argument that excluding same-sex couples from basic protections is somehow good for other married people:
Because all 50 States recognize hetero-sexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally- recognized form of marriage.

The government does not state why denying us basic protections promotes anyone else’s marriage, nor why, while our heterosexual neighbors’ marriages should be promoted, our own must be discouraged. In other words, the brief does not even attempt to explain how DOMA is related to any interest, but rather accepts that it is constitutional to attempt to legislate our families out of existence.

The brief characterizes DOMA as “neutral:”
[DOMA amounts to] a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage.

DOMA is not “neutral” to a federal employee serving in your administration who is denied equal compensation because she cannot cover her same-sex spouse in her health plan. When a woman must choose between her job and caring for her spouse because they are not covered by the FMLA, DOMA is not “neutral.” DOMA is not a “neutral” policy to the thousands of bi-national same-sex couples who have to choose between family and country because they are considered strangers under our immigration laws. It is not a “neutral” policy toward the minor child of a same-sex couple, who is denied thousands of dollars of surviving mother’s or father’s benefits because his parents are not “spouses” under Social Security law.

Exclusion is not neutrality.

Next, the brief indicates that denying gay people our equal rights saves money:

It is therefore permitted to maintain the unique privileges [the government] has afforded to [different-sex marriages] without immediately extending the same privileges, and scarce government resources, to new forms of marriage that States have only recently begun to recognize.

The government goes on to say that DOMA reasonably protects other taxpayers from having to subsidize families like ours. The following excerpt explains:

DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage that their own states do not recognize.

These arguments completely disregard the fact that LGBT citizens pay taxes ourselves. We contribute into Social Security equally and receive the same statement in the mail every year. But for us, several of the benefits listed in the statement are irrelevant—our spouses and children will never benefit from them. The parent who asserts that her payments into Social Security should ensure her child’s financial future should she die is not seeking a subsidy. The gay White House employee who works as hard as the person in the next office is not seeking a “subsidy” for his partner’s federal health benefits. He is earning the same compensation without receiving it. And the person who cannot even afford to insure her family because the federal government would treat her partner’s benefits as taxable income—she is not seeking a subsidy.

The government again ignores our experiences when it argues that DOMA § 2 does not impair same-sex couples’ right to move freely about our country as other families can:

DOMA does not affect “the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another state, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State.”

This example shows the fallacy of that argument: a same-sex couple and their child drives cross- country for a vacation. On the way, they are in a terrible car accident. One partner is rushed into the ICU while the other, and their child, begs to be let in to see her, presenting the signed power of attorney that they carry wherever they go. They are told that only “family” may enter, and the woman dies alone while her spouse waits outside. This family was not “welcome.”

As a matter of constitutional law, some of this brief does not even make sense:

DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits…. Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.

In other words, DOMA does not discriminate against gay people, but rather only provides federal benefits to heterosexuals.

I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones:

And the courts have widely held that certain marriages, performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened public policy of th[at] state.”

As an American, a civil rights advocate, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief. In the course of your campaign, I became convinced—and I still want to believe—that you do, too. I have seen your administration aspire and achieve. Protecting women from employment discrimination. Insuring millions of children. Enabling stem cell research to go forward. These are powerful achievements. And they serve as evidence to me that this brief should not be good enough for you. The question is, Mr. President—do you believe that it’s good enough for us?

If we are your equals, if you recognize that our families live the same, love the same, and contribute as much as yours, then the answer must be no.

We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress.

Sincerely,

Joe Solmonese

I am sure many of you are aware of Lt. Choi’s fight with “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”.  I could fill this entire blog with reasons why DADT does NOT work, not just with our homosexual soldiers but also for our COUNTRY.  Instead I will recommend an amazing book that will explain this much, much, MUCH better than I ever could.

Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America.

I was worried that this book would be like a textbook.  I was completely wrong.  By the end of the book not only did I know more about the military then I ever had, I CARED about it and how the average solider (straight OR gay) was dying because of DADT.  If you have a loved one/friend in the military and never gave DADT much thought, you need to read this to see how bigotry is putting those that you care about at risk.

I know some of you are waiting for my reaction to Prop 8 being backed up by California’s Supreme Court.  I just can’t write about it yet.

I’m still so very very angry.

Like unreasonably angry, like say something stupid angry.  I want to cut California off of the country…but I have friends there, friends that are just as mad as me.  I want to scream at people the Twitter about Jon & Kate as people are losing their basic civil rights, but that would be extremely emo.

So right now I will let Lily Allen & this fabulous video do the talking for me;

Keep your eye on your clocks for this coming Tuesday, May 26 at 10:00am! The California Supreme Court has final stated that they will have their decision regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The California Supreme Court has announced that it will issue an opinion in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 2009. (Strauss v. Horton, S168047; Tyler v. State of California, S168066; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078.) Tuesday at 10 a.m., the opinion will be available on the California Courts Web site at this link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/.

I sincerely hope that the judges have looked at more than the idea of simply the “revision” arguments, but really into the heart of the matter to learn that Proposition 8 is not protecting marriage at all, but harming a tiny minority of the world’s population.

I’m hoping with all my heart that Proposition 8 is struck down as unconstitutional. Whether it is or not, the struggle for all of us, and our equal rights and freedom, must continue on.

Cheers,
Phil 

Steve Schmidt’s Speech on Gay Marriage & Rights

Former Campaign Manager for John McCain speaks on gay rights

Thank you for that introduction, and for your invitation to join you today. I haven’t done much public speaking since the election. I haven’t done any, in fact. But over five months have passed since the election, and in gratitude for your contributions to our party and out of concern for its future success, I appreciate this opportunity to share a few thoughts with you about the direction I hope our party takes as it seeks to recover the support and trust of the American people.

To state the obvious: the Republican Party needs to grow. A review of the exit polls and current demographic trends in the United States should make it clear to all but the most determined optimist that our coalition is shrinking, and losing ground with segments of the population that are growing. Whether it’s with suburban voters, working class voters, college educated voters, Hispanics or left handed Albanian psychics, the percentage voting Republican has declined. Perhaps, the most alarming of these various and generally worrying results of the last election is the huge margin by which we lost voters under 30. Having said that, it is not a foregone conclusion these are long term trends or even trends at all. They might just be the results of two lost elections, although I doubt it. And even if they do represent movement toward a center left political realignment, unanticipated events could arrest or begin to reverse them even in the near term.

Political scientists and campaign consultants tend not to account for contingency when they are busy predicting the future. The McCain campaign, for instance, initially thought our most difficult problem would be the war in Iraq, an assumption we made based on exit polls from the 2006 mid term elections. Obviously, we guessed wrong, thanks in part, paradoxically, to Senator McCain’s statesmanship as an early advocate of the surge.

We had many environmental challenges that made our campaign an uphill struggle from start to finish. In addition to the President’s unpopularity and two wars the country had tired of, we had historic wrong track numbers, record high gas prices, an unprecedented resource disadvantage, and a disparity in press coverage. While we worried about these and many other challenges in 2007 and early 2008, we never believed the election was unwinnable, and had by early September managed to fight our way to a rough tie, and even a very small lead. None of us, however, expected a global financial crisis to be one of them. I’m pretty confident, President Obama’s campaign didn’t anticipate one either. It was the last obstacle imposed on a very challenged campaign. It proved to be insurmountable. And no one had really seen it coming.

Should the recession grow deeper or linger longer; should President Obama’s hugely expensive domestic policies begin to worry swing voters more than they are reassured by his skill at promoting them; should some national security disaster happen or any number of other contingencies occur, the advances made by Democrats in the last two elections might be short-lived. But no one should take comfort from knowing our Party’s success could come at the expense of the country or must rely on blunders by the Administration and the Democratic Congress. Moreover, while I think projections of a political re-alignment are premature based on the results of two elections, I would rather be in the Democrats’ shoes than ours. Their coalition is expanding. Ours is shrinking. Their vote share is increasing among voter segments that are growing. Ours is not. The rapid growth of the Hispanic-American population, for instance, could soon cost Republicans the entire Southwest if we don’t recover our previous share of their vote. Had Senator McCain not been the Republican nominee in 2008, I’m convinced we would have lost Arizona. It’s very hard to see how we put together 270 electoral votes without the Southwest.

As a percentage of the total vote, younger voters didn’t really increase in the last election. But the Democrats’ margin with those voters certainly did. In short, we were crushed by the Obama campaign with voters under 30. President Obama was a uniquely attractive candidate to younger voters, in matters of style as much as substance. And maybe as those voters grow older and acquire greater responsibilities they will develop a better appreciation for Republican values of limited government, fiscal discipline, low taxes and a strong defense. That has happened in the past.

But even if they do, I doubt they will abandon social attributes that distinguish them from older voters; among them, a greater acceptance of people who find happiness in relationships with members of the same sex. And I believe Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters.

Of course, a party cannot grow if it subtracts while it tries to add. Social conservatives remain an indispensable part of the Republican coalition. I don’t subscribe to the notion that social conservatives are a monolithic bloc of close minded people who would tread on the rights of Americans who disagree with them. Nor do I think conservatism will or should abandon its reluctance to change or abandon social conventions that are important to the strength and stability of our society.

The institution of marriage is the foundation of society and alterations to its definitions shouldn’t be lightly undertaken. It has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman, and it’s understandable that many Americans are apprehensive about making a definitional change to so profoundly an important institution. But it is a tradition, not a creed, or, at least, not a national creed. It is not how we define ourselves as Americans. And while we shouldn’t carelessly dismiss the importance of enduring traditions, we should understand that traditions do change over time in every society. And as long as those changes do not conflict with the tenets of our national creed then they can, and inevitably will, be modified by a society that has come to view them as inequitable.

Our national creed is a declaration of natural rights not a compact for the preservation of social customs, as important as many of those customs are. It was precisely and elegantly defined 233 years ago as adherence to certain self-evident truths. All are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Americans’ fidelity to that creed ended the tradition of slavery because it was understood that slavery denied to the slave the universal rights America was founded in blood to protect. Women were constitutionally disenfranchised. But in time that injustice was rectified because the nation realized such discrimination violated our national creed.

The argument of the pro-life community acquires its moral force because it holds that the life of the unborn is not distinct in its dignity from the life of the born, and, thus, possesses a God-given right to be protected. The same protection cannot be argued to extend to the institutional definition of marriage as exclusively the union of persons of the opposite sex.

It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered society. It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief, which I respect. But it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.

I know mine is a minority view among Republicans, and I don’t honestly expect our party will reverse in the very near term its opposition to same sex marriage. Nor do I yet see support for it from a strong majority of the general public. And, I do believe that such a highly charged political question such as this should be settled by the freely expressed will of the people, and not by the courts. That doesn’t relieve advocates of the responsibility to make their case urgently. I understand how tired many Americans are of being admonished to be patient to right what they believe is an injustice. But I’m confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it. And I believe the nation’s acceptance of same sex unions as lawful marriage would provide a far more secure guarantee that the change made to this profoundly important social institution will be permanent than would judicial fiat.

If we cannot achieve a consensus today on recognizing the marriages of gay couples, surely, in simple justice, we can respect their human dignity by protecting their rights to assign unique privileges and responsibilities to another person. Whether you are for or against same sex marriages, every Republican ought to value the right of people to make such personal decisions for themselves. As former Vice President Cheney observed, freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think Republicans should always be on the side of freedom and equal rights.

I, and I believe most people, believe you are born with your sexuality. It is not a choice. It should offend us as Republicans and Americans when gays are denigrated as degenerates or un-American or undeserving of the government’s protection of their rights. And the Republican Party should give voice to genuine outrage when anyone belittles the humanity of another person. It is offensive in the extreme to the values of this nation, and we should be in the forefront of rejecting such truly un-American prejudice. Moreover, if you believe we are born with our sexual orientation, it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and people of another are not.

Even though a majority of Republicans remain opposed to it, we must respect dissent on the subject within the party and encourage debate over it, and should not reject out of hand and on specious grounds the question that the party might be in the wrong on the question. We should publicly affirm that gays are entitled to the same respect and protections we accord heterosexuals to be secure from discrimination in their employment and the places they choose to live; to enter into contractual relationships with another person that grant them the same benefits and privileges allowed married couples, such as tax advantages accorded married couples or the responsibilities to make end of life decisions for one another.

There’s nothing inherently objectionable about debating whether same sex marriage would undermine the institution and, by extension, society. Some people believe strongly that it would. I argue that it wouldn’t. But that debate should be conducted with respect for the dignity of all parties involved. Opponents to giving women the vote argued such a change would undermine marriage and other social institutions. I think the institution would be strengthened by the inclusion of more couples who are genuinely committed to each other. But even if you believe marriage would be changed for the worse by same sex unions, I’m not sure it’s a compelling argument for their exclusion. We don’t forbid divorce, a more proven and prevalent threat to the health of our society.

As I said, I respect the opinions of Americans who oppose marriage for gay couples on religious grounds. I may disagree, but if you sincerely believe God’s revealed truth objects to it then it is perfectly honorable to oppose it. But those are not the grounds on which a political party should take or argue a position. If you put public policy issues to a religious test you risk becoming a religious party, and in a free country, a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as sectarian.

Last February, an opponent of same sex marriage, David Blankenhorn, and an advocate, Jonathan Rauch, suggested in a New York Times op-ed a compromise that could serve the interests and values of both. They wrote that Congress should grant federal civil union status to same sex marriages and civil unions licensed at the state level as long as those states recognized religious conscience exceptions for religious organizations that do not want to recognize same sex unions.

I think that idea makes a lot sense. While it might not satisfy either side completely, it respects and values the rights of both, and would go a long way to correct the existing inequality.

Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that’s a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that’s hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others.

There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same sex marriage. I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one’s liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage. In a marriage, two people are completely responsible to and for each other. If you are not willing to accept and faithfully discharge those responsibilities, you shouldn’t enter the state of matrimony, and

it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference if you’re straight or gay. It is a responsibility like no other, which can and should make marriage an association between two human beings more fulfilling than any other.

Many studies have shown that married people are generally happier than unmarried people. Marriage gives greater purpose to life, and, to borrow from Pastor Warren, the more purpose driven your life is, the happier it is. Marriage does not or should not depend on transitory emotions. It is a partnership in all aspects of life that changes the way not just society, but the individual perceives him or herself, and gives greater incentive to an individual to live a good and virtuous life because the happiness, not just momentary pleasure, but the lasting happiness, of others depends on it. Marriage can be a profoundly gratifying state that strengthens the virtue of individuals and societies, and increases the measure and quality of the happiness we enjoy. It seems to me a terrible inequity that any person should be denied that responsibility, and the emotional enrichment it can provide. And I cannot in good conscience exclude anyone who is prepared for such a commitment from the prospect of such happiness.

In closing, I’ll return to our national creed, what Lincoln called the inestimable jewel of American history, and offer my respect for and urge my fellow Republicans to respect every human being’s rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as much as they cherish their own.

Customs change. Societies change. People change. But that creed must never change. It is the foundation upon which the success of not just of our party, but our country rests. If you do not impede my pursuit of happiness, I must not impede yours, but stand with you, as fellow Americans, lovers of liberty, to defend your natural right to seek happiness in life and love according to dictates of your heart and your heart alone.

The articles that are floating around are from a year ago today.  Many websites are not checking the facts before they publish it.  The court will not come to a decision until next week.

Help counter the lies.

Call 202-224-3121 TODAY and ask your Senators to support the hate crimes bill.

Then click here to report your call.

Dear Rachel,

You’re not going to believe what they’re saying about the Matthew Shepard Act, S.909.

Yesterday, far right groups launched their latest attacks: action alerts and online videos with outrageously false claims that the Matthew Shepard Act would “give legally protected status to pedophiles.” Senate offices are being blasted with calls trying to pawn off these ridiculous lies and scare senators.

We need you to call your senators to make sure that they are hearing from fair-minded people like you.

It takes about 45 seconds to call each one of your senators – and each one of them needs to hear from you today. So set yourself a reminder on your computer. Make the call on your way to lunch. Or stop reading this and do it right now. Whatever you do, make sure to CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY.

If you’ve never called Congress, let me assure you, it’s easy

1. Before 5 p.m. ET, call your senators’ offices at 202-224-3121.
2. Most likely, one of your senator’s interns will answer and ask where you’re calling from and why. You’re calling to urge the Senator to support the Matthew Shepard Act (S. 909). Most calls end right there. But if you like, you can add:
   • Sexual Orientation is already defined in Federal law and clearly does not include any of the criminal acts right wing groups are claiming it does.
   • In fact, hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are on the rise. One out of every six hate crimes is because of the victim’s sexual orientation.
   • Hate crimes have more than one victim. They are intended to create an atmosphere of fear and terrorize entire communities.
   • IMPORTANT: After you hang up, click here to let us know that you made the call. Don’t skip this step! It helps us track our progress.

We have the truth on our side – and we need you to speak the truth today to counter our opponents’ outrageous lies. Please make your phone calls right now.

Then, please pass this email on to your friends and family.

Thank you for taking action.

Warmly,

Joe Solmonese
President

Dear Miss California,

I realize that it is hard to be you right now.  You voiced an opinion and are now all over the internet.  You say that you are a Christian and have become the face for DOM.  As a result racy pictures of you have been dug up and posted all over.  You claim it’s not fair and while I agree I do have to say that you kind of picked the wrong side.

You may enjoy the attention from the Christian groups now, but soon they are going to have to turn on you…at least they are supposed to according to the book you guys are so strongly quoting from.

Remember 1 Timothy 2:9?

⁹I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes

Not only are your pictures in violation of this statement, but so is your entire pageant career.  Bikini competitions, cleavage enhancing formal dresses, it doesn’t look good for you.

Maybe next time you think about becoming the spokesperson for a group that supports hate you should remember the other great passage from your good book;

1 Timothy 2:12

¹²I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Sincerely,

Rachel

Whenever someone asks me the usual “How old were you when you knew you were gay?” and “How did you realize you were gay?” questions, I like to point them to this fantastic questionnaire created by psychologist Martin Rochlin in 1977. It’s a simple but powerful idea: replace the term “homosexual” with “heterosexual” and we’re golden.

Here’s the questionnaire:

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality? 

2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual? 

3. Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?

4. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex? 

5. Isn’t it possible that all you need is a good gay lover? 

6. Heterosexuals have histories of failures in gay relationships. Do you think you may have turned to  heterosexuality out of fear of rejection? 

7. If you’ve never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn’t prefer that? 

8. If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual? 

9. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react? 

10. Your heterosexuality doesn’t offend me as long as you don’t try to force it on me. Why do you people feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation? 

11. If you choose to nurture children, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face? 

12. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers? 

13. Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can’t you just be what you are and keep it quiet?

14. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusive heterosexual object choice and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, natural, healthy, God-given homosexual potential? 

15. Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing? 

16. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex? 

17. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals? 

18. How could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual, considering the menace of overpopulation? 

19. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed with which you might be able to change if you really want to. Have you considered aversion therapy? 

20. Do heterosexuals hate and/or distrust others of their own sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?

Note: I may or may not have directed this questionnaire to the more heterosexist of my brothers. It elicited no response from them, but I figured it was worth a shot.

Phil