Dispatches from Bitter America: A Gun Toting, Chicken Eating Son of a Baptist's Culture War Stories

by Starnes, Todd

  Who knew so many people were confused about this? When I was in grade school, it was pretty easy to figure out which team everyone was on. And anyone who was still confused was ordered to watch the entire first season of The Dukes of Hazzard. Daisy Duke had tremendous influence on the males of my generation.

  Honestly, folks, I just don't know what to make of the coming genderless society. I long for the old days when God handled the business of creating man in His image. Those were grand times, weren't they? God created our "inward parts," is how the Bible describes it. He knit us together in our mothers' wombs. We were "remarkably and wonderfully made."

  But this is the twenty-first century, and mankind has decided they know how to improve the product. Between you and me, I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the pearly gates on rapture day when all these folks have to explain why they've got extra parts the original models didn't have.

  Here's a sampling of some early battles in the quest for a genderless society.

  Genderless Passports Considered

  The State Department briefly considered replacing the words "mother" and "father" on U.S. passport applications with more gender neutral terminology. "The words in the old form were 'mother' and 'father,'" said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant secretary of state for Passport Services. "They are now 'parent one' and 'parent two.'"2

  A statement on the State Department Web site noted: "These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child's parents and in recognition of different types of families." The statement didn't note if it was for child applications only.

  Sprague said the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness. "We find, with changes in medical science and reproductive technology, that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated ten or fifteen years ago," she said.

  Gay-rights groups are applauding the decision. "Changing the terms mother and father to the more global term of parent allows many different types of families to apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn't recognize their family," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Equality Council.

  Her organization lobbied the government for several years to remove the words from passport applications. "Our government needs to recognize that the family structure is changing," Chrisler said. "The best thing we can do is support people who are raising kids in loving, stable families."

  But some conservative Christians are outraged over the decision. "Only in the topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness could it be considered an 'improvement' for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told me. "This is clearly designed to advance the causes of same-sex 'marriage' and homosexual parenting without statutory authority, and it violates the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act."

  Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, agreed. "It's part of an overall attempt at political correctness to diminish the distinction between men and women and to somehow suggest you don't need both a father and a mother to raise a child successfully," said Jeffress. "[This decision] was made to help homosexual couples feel more comfortable in rearing children."

  Chrisler recounted the day she and her female partner tried to get passports for her twin sons.

  "Even though my partner was their legal mother, had adopted them after I gave birth to them, she still had to put her name in the father field, and that is both discriminatory and makes us feel like second-class citizens," she said.

  Passport Services official Sprague said she would not use the word discriminatory to describe the old form. "I would prefer to use the word imprecise," she said. "It just didn't capture the reality of their situation. Clearly, we want to be sensitive to the feelings of other people, but we are also conscious of our need to introduce the greatest degree of precision to the process."

  Perkins, meanwhile, accused the State Department of disrespecting the law and called on Congress to "take their oversight role very seriously" and to intervene in these circumstances.

  Obama Touts Gay Fathers

  President Obama saluted gay fathers in his annual Father's Day proclamation—a move that is believed to be a first in presidential history. "Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a stepfather, a grandfather, or caring guardian," the president wrote. "For the character they build, the doors they open, and the love they provide over our lifetimes, all our fathers deserve our unending appreciation and admiration."

  As noted in The Washington Post, it may be the first time gay fathers have been included in a presidential Father's Day proclamation. "George W. Bush's final proclamation in 2008 noted the 'extraordinary effort of the nation's fathers, stepfathers, grandfathers, and guardians,'"3 wrote Alec MacGillis of the Post. "And the furthest Obama's proclamation went last year in giving a nod to nontraditional fathering was to 'honor those surrogate fathers who raise, mentor, or care for someone else's child.'"

  The move has been heralded in pro-gay Web sites and blogs. GLTNewsnow.com said President Obama was being "all inclusive."

  "Glad you recognize that fathers, including gay fathers, not only carry enormous responsibilities, but often serve as mentors, tutors, and leaders within our neighborhoods and communities,"4 wrote Michael Jones, an editor at Change.org.

  The proclamation has not been well received among Christian conservatives, however. "The only two fathers in a home should be God and dad," said Michael Linton, pastor of Hope Fellowship in Humble, Texas. "Unfortunately, it's an even more blatant (if possible) acceptance and endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle than we have previously seen from him.

  "It should go without saying that same-sex parents are completely and totally unbiblical," Pastor Linton said. "But here we have the president endorsing a nonbiblical, nontraditional, mostly unaccepted lifestyle by proclamation."

  Southern Baptist pastor Mark Wood said conservatives should be upset. "Rightfully so, our country is slipping," he told me. "Even churches are tolerating the unthinkable. This is a prime example of the loss of a standard—the Bible."

  School Orders Boys to Dress like Girls

  An elementary school in Burlington County, New Jersey, is under fire after ordering boys to dress up in female clothing to celebrate Women's History Month. The activity was eventually cancelled after a number of parents complained to the Maple Shade School District. The cross-dressing day at Maude Wilkins Elementary School was scheduled for April 16, which happens to be the national "Day of Silence," created by a gay advocacy group to bring awareness to anti-bullying efforts.

  "All students must participate in the activity," stated a note sent home with students and eventually published online. "If your child is a young man, he does not have to wear a dress or skirt, as there are many time periods where women wore pants or trousers."5

  Some parents, like Janine Patterson Giandomenico, were outraged. "Asking my nine-year-old son to dress like a woman in a school fashion show in front of his peers is crossing the line for me," she wrote on her Facebook page. "How is dressing like a woman from any era going to teach him about history? I resent the fact that the Maple Shade School District is telling me that he and I have no choice," she wrote.

  Superintendent Michael Livengood told me the event was cancelled because it "caused quite a bit of controversy."

  "I wish that initial letter had been worded differently," he said. "That was the mistake in the whole process."

  Livengood said it was never the principal's intent for the boys to wear skirts. "I understand both sides when you read the letter," he said. "It does say everyone must participate. It does say everyone must wear women's clothing, but that was not the intent."

 
Livengood said no one at the school is in trouble although he said he probably will remind teachers to be more careful how future letters are worded.

  As for the cross-dressing event being scheduled on the same day as the "Day of Silence," Livengood said it was "purely coincidental."

  Potty Parity

  If the Maine Human Rights Commission has its way, transgendered students would be allowed to choose the bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams of their choice. The commission's attorney believes forcing a little girl to use the "little girl's room" is not only unconstitutional—it's illegal.

  "Schools cannot discriminate against sexual identity or gender identification," said John Gause, the legal counsel for Maine's Human Rights Commission, in remarks published by WorldNetDaily. "Schools cannot segregate students based on sexual orientation and identity."6 He suggested that forcing students to use "biology based" restrooms is illegal and must be stopped.

  According to an account published in the Bangor Daily News, the discussion centered around a document created by the commission called "Sexual Orientation in Schools and Colleges."7 The document recommends schools let transgender students use bathrooms, play on sports teams, and follow the dress codes of the gender they identify with.

  This discussion comes after an incident last summer in which the commission ruled that the Orono School District discriminated against a boy who was denied access to the girl's bathroom. A review of that decision is pending before a state superior court judge.

  "This is a commission that exists to protect the human rights of the people of Maine," said Zachary Heidin, of the Maine Civil Liberties Union in an interview with the Bangor Daily News. "Maine law protects people from discrimination based on gender identity and expression. Allowing people who are transgender to use the bathroom, which is a basic human need, is entirely consistent with basic human rights as well as Maine law."

  Rev. Bob Celeste attended the public hearing but was not allowed to speak. He's opposed to the plan. "All they're interested in doing is using anything as a guise to introduce the children of Maine to the homosexual lifestyle," he told the newspaper.

  The commission has already ruled that a middle school discriminated against a sixth-grader by not letting the child, who is a boy, use the girls' bathroom. They're facing a similar struggle in Houston where men who believe they are women can now use the ladies' room.

  Mayor Annise Parker signed executive orders prohibiting city workers from harassment or discrimination in hiring, promotion, and contracting based on gender identity, according to the Houston Chronicle.8 The order also allows transgendered people to use restroom facilities in city-owned buildings for the gender with which they identify.

  Parker, who is gay, is earning praise from supporters in the gay community. "The mayor wanted to put in writing what has already been the city's practice, which is that we do not discriminate," spokesperson Janice Evans told the newspaper.

  The executive orders only impact city workers and not the general public.

  "This is essential," said Kris Banks, president of the Houston Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Political Caucus, in an interview with the Chronicle. "A nondiscrimination provision that protects sexual orientation but doesn't protect gender identity is toothless. . . . It's quite a thing, having a mayor that really understands all these issues."

  However, the Houston Area Pastors Council is outraged. Critics like Dave Wilson have been labeled "anti-gay." He opposes the mayor's decision.

  "Forcing women in particular using city facilities to be subjected to cross-dressing men invading their privacy is beyond the pale and offensive to every standard of decency,"9 Pastor Steve Riggle told The Christian Post.

  Herman Castano, who pastors a Hispanic congregation, called the mayor's decision "morally wrong, irresponsible, and indefensible."

  But while the experts debate the philosophical and psychological issues involved in the coming genderless society, I have a more practical question to pose in relation to the new genderless bathrooms popping up around the country:

  Do you leave the seat up or down?

  22

  Save Mankind, Eat an Animal

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He made cows for cheeseburgers, turkeys for Thanksgiving, and chickens for the Baptists.

  But somehow over the past few thousand years, mankind has slowly lost its place in the food chain. And now the animal kingdom is getting restless. In fact, it may be only a matter of time before Fluffy satisfies his hunger with something other than Meow Mix.

  Consider the following:

  In Florida, a naked crackhead was nearly eaten alive by an alligator. As Sheriff Grady Judd so eloquently told FOX News Channel, just because you are a naked crackhead does not give an alligator the right to eat you alive.1

  In California, there's the horrific story of James Davis, who along with his wife, owned an animal sanctuary where they kept their pet chimpanzee, Moe. One year they decided to throw a birthday bash for their chimp, complete with a cake. So how did Moe decide to celebrate? He attacked Mr. Davis and tore off his testicles.

  But the most egregious example of animal-on-human violence happened in 2010 at Sea World. A twelve-thousand-pound killer whale named Tilly attacked a female trainer. The Orca whale grabbed Dawn Brancheau's hair and within minutes she was dead.

  The incident generated headlines from coast to coast as experts tried to understand why a killer whale would kill someone. But the headline that intrigued me most came from The New York Times.

  "Intentions of Whale Killing Are Debated," the article's headline declared. "Questions about the mammal's intent continued to linger."2

  Well, I'm no expert, but I've seen Jaws and Piranha. So let me see if I can help out The New York Times. Maybe the killer whale whacked the trainer because he was hungry? It's not out of the realm of possibility that even though Sea World refers to them as trainers, the fish refer to them as bait.

  Sea World was quick to defend itself in the aftermath of the tragedy. They said they had no reason to suspect the behavior that led to the trainer's death. Well, here's a clue, folks—Tilly is called a "killer" whale.

  A number of animal-rights activists were actually siding with the whale, suggesting the creature was overworked and stressed out. But marine conservationist Richard Ellis told The New York Times the death of the trainer was not an accident. "This was premeditated," he said.

  So how does Sea World punish the whale? Well, that was the subject of great debate.

  I had the perfect solution. It involved a rowboat, a shotgun, and Bill Dance.

  Cass Sunstein, on the other hand, has a different take on animal rights. He's one of President Obama's pals, and he's a passionate advocate for the furry. He was actually in line for a job in the Obama Administration, but Republican lawmakers objected to Sunstein's desire to establish legal rights for cows and pigs, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts.

  No, really.

  "There should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture,"3 he wrote in a 2002 working paper while at the University of Chicago Law school.

  With all due respect to Mr. Sunstein, I'd like to introduce my own working paper. I like to call it my "Animal Bill of Rights."

  1. You have the right to be eaten.

  2. You have the right to be batter dipped and skillet fried.

  3. You have the right to be smothered in steak sauce.

  4. You have the right to be char-grilled.

  5. You have the right to be covered in cheese.

  It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. And, folks, we have a personal responsibility not to become the main course. Friends, it's time to reclaim our position in the food chain, preferably with a cast-iron skillet in hand. Let the beasts of the
field know who's in charge.

  May our rally cry be heard across the fruited plain! The only good chicken is a fried chicken.

  Just remember, gentle readers, guns don't kill people, but animals do—so be sure to enforce your position on the food chain with your friends from Smith and Wesson.

  23

  A Conversation with Michelle Malkin

  Michelle Malkin is one of my favorite columnists. She drives liberals nuts with her no-holds-barred approach to writing. But she's also got her finger on the pulse of the mainstream media. And she takes them to task for what she considers to be unfair and unbalanced news coverage. I had a chance to visit with Michelle, and she gave me the inside scoop on what's wrong with American journalism.

  Todd: There's no use putting makeup on a pig—so let's get right to it. Is there bias in the mainstream media?

  Malkin: There's no question about it. There is bias in the media. There are all sorts of biases. I've worked in daily journalism since 1992 and had the privilege (or ordeal) of working in two metro daily newspaper newsrooms—the Los Angeles Daily News and The Seattle Times. So when I say, "Yes, there's bias," it's not just the opinion of a conservative pundit who works outside the newsroom but somebody who saw it up close and experienced it personally.

  At the Los Angeles Daily News, I worked for a center-right-leaning editorial board and didn't spend too much face-to-face contact time with the reporters. But I did have a lot of interaction with beat reporters, and in some cases—this is true with The Seattle Times as well—it was more the sins of omission than the sins of commission where the bias manifested itself.